Talk:U.S. President Trump defends decision to share classified information with Russians

Review of revision 4314586 [Not ready]

Revision 4314586 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: I see two or three things here that ought to be addressed. There's a matter of what goes in the lede versus in later paragraphs; there's some information that needs clarifying as it seems rather essential; and there might be something of a sourcing concern. The focal event according to the headline, properly I think, is Trump's defending the decision. It seems quite important that we make the timeline very clear on this (key for understanding the story). Where did the story come from in the first place (somebody broke it; who?). It's my impression that Trump's people said things that appeared to be flat denials, then this morning out of the blue Trump said I-had-every-right-to and thus undermined what his people had been saying yesterday; that suggests it's very important to make very clear just when his people said those things. The lede doesn't even mention Trumps statement of today; it seems to be all background, probably almost of it can be relegated to the second paragraph, whereas the headline's focal event isn't mentioned till the second paragraph — which may itself go into more detail than a lede would have to. At any rate, the current arrangment needs substantial reshuffling, which could be done in a wide variety of ways and therefore it's not something I can do. Re sourcing, it's not so good that the focal event is covered by two articles in the same publication; we general don't consider those sufficiently mutually independent. Independent sources can provide better breadth of perspective. 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 4314586 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: I see two or three things here that ought to be addressed. There's a matter of what goes in the lede versus in later paragraphs; there's some information that needs clarifying as it seems rather essential; and there might be something of a sourcing concern. The focal event according to the headline, properly I think, is Trump's defending the decision. It seems quite important that we make the timeline very clear on this (key for understanding the story). Where did the story come from in the first place (somebody broke it; who?). It's my impression that Trump's people said things that appeared to be flat denials, then this morning out of the blue Trump said I-had-every-right-to and thus undermined what his people had been saying yesterday; that suggests it's very important to make very clear just when his people said those things. The lede doesn't even mention Trumps statement of today; it seems to be all background, probably almost of it can be relegated to the second paragraph, whereas the headline's focal event isn't mentioned till the second paragraph — which may itself go into more detail than a lede would have to. At any rate, the current arrangment needs substantial reshuffling, which could be done in a wide variety of ways and therefore it's not something I can do. Re sourcing, it's not so good that the focal event is covered by two articles in the same publication; we general don't consider those sufficiently mutually independent. Independent sources can provide better breadth of perspective. 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.

Finding a corroborating source was the easy part. I've also done some reorganization. For the record, I did go digging for quotes from any Republicans or other politicians in support of the President, but the closest I could find amounted to "it's not illegal,"[1] which didn't seem worth the additional space. I welcome other views. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:42, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Breaking developments

@Pi zero: NYTimes, Wall Street J and MSN all just identified Israel as the source of the intelligence. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Taken out from under review. I don't think I have a full review in me tonight anyway; I was up until about 3am doing a review... how many nights ago? and I'm barely recovered. I lost my facility with all-nighters shortly after the 2012 electin. --Pi zero (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Catch some Z's while I update the A on PrezT. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:44, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, the MSN link seems to be a reprint of the NYTimes article (though I haven't checked every line). Is there any way to cite the NYTimes as the primary and add MSN as a courtesy link for non-subscribers who don't want to use up their ten NYFreebies? Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest just improvising a way. --Pi zero (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I did the line-by-line and they're not exactly the same, just very similar. One could be a paraphrase of the other. Gonna go with the non-paywalled one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4314835 [Passed]

Revision 4314835 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4314835 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.