Talk:U.S. tariffs on Chinese solar panels to be contested
Add topic{{peer reviewed
|revid=Revision ID
|copyright=pass
|newsworthy=pass
|verifiable=pass
|npov=pass
|style=pass
|reviewer=Soapy1
|comments=Any Comments, [[User:Soapy|Soapy]] ([[User talk:Soapy|talk]]) 17:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
|time=17:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)}}
Sorry, you can't do that. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 17:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
- This should have failed review or been corrected anyway as a showstopper part of a review. An article with an unambiguous url indiciating it was from, and on, a Reuters source was 'supposedly' from the NYT. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:25, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
- I hope you do realize the Reuters/NYT reference was a mistake. The link that he has is exactly the same article that I linked, it is just at a different url. Also, quite a bit of the revisions that were made was nothing but organizational changes which, is a matter of someone believes an article should be presented. I find it quite interesting that there wasn't a single substantive change in the article rather, the vast majority of the changes were commas, word choice and re-ordering. I thought we're about reporting the truth from a neutral point of view. If that's the case then the failed comment I think is totally out of line.--JaylanHaley (talk) 18:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Review of revision 891309 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 891309 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: This did need significant work to bring to publication standard. NOTE! This contained a near-essential title change, actually correctly citing a linked-to source, specifying the time period which given figures were provided for, plus news-style reference to recent events (today, yesterday, this week, last Wednesday's). Other copyedit was to some extent my personal preference and interpretation of the style guide. 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 891309 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: This did need significant work to bring to publication standard. NOTE! This contained a near-essential title change, actually correctly citing a linked-to source, specifying the time period which given figures were provided for, plus news-style reference to recent events (today, yesterday, this week, last Wednesday's). Other copyedit was to some extent my personal preference and interpretation of the style guide. 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. |
Category
[edit]Please add to Category:Renewable energy. Thanks. —Elekhh (talk) 23:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
