Talk:Three suicide bombings in Yemen kill security personnel

Review of revision 4234928 [Not ready]

Revision 4234928 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Needs updating - see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: There's been another bombing in Yemen a few hours ago, apparently. Given that, together with the event here being two days back, this in its current form no longer feels fresh. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4234928 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Needs updating - see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: There's been another bombing in Yemen a few hours ago, apparently. Given that, together with the event here being two days back, this in its current form no longer feels fresh. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 4235150 [Not ready]

Revision 4235150 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: There's no second source for the incident on Wednesday. I'm concerned that the facts of that incident may not be universally agreed upon; with only one source, I've no basis on which to judge. (I don't mean to be a stickler for rules, here. I was uncomfortable with the single source for the later incident, and rather than decide immediately I tried to do a sanity check about it — and it looked as if some versions of the incident may say four dead instead of five. So my sanity check failed, and I really feel we need a second source, so we can make an informed choice of attribution on the point. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4235150 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: There's no second source for the incident on Wednesday. I'm concerned that the facts of that incident may not be universally agreed upon; with only one source, I've no basis on which to judge. (I don't mean to be a stickler for rules, here. I was uncomfortable with the single source for the later incident, and rather than decide immediately I tried to do a sanity check about it — and it looked as if some versions of the incident may say four dead instead of five. So my sanity check failed, and I really feel we need a second source, so we can make an informed choice of attribution on the point. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 4235392 [Passed]

Revision 4235392 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Suggestion: a bit more background about Aden would made the coverage smoother. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4235392 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:58, 22 July 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Suggestion: a bit more background about Aden would made the coverage smoother. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

@Pi zero: okay. I have three contract news to cover in one article, will try to help the Munich attack article and then add some information here before the '24-hour' mark. Well, there is done change in the schedule. Per the circumstances, it would be very difficult for me to create articles for a week. I would probably mail you the questions I thought I would ask you on IRC regarding ArbCom.
acagastya 21:38, 22 July 2016 (UTC)