Talk:UEFA Champions League 2015-2016: Draw for Last 16 held at Nyon

Review of revision 4056434 [Not ready]

Revision 4056434 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Needs some explanation for the general reader, who doesn't already know how this stuff works. What is Last 16, group winners? (I believe I understand, but only because I've been reviewing a bunch of articles on this stuff lately.) I imagine one well-chosen sentence would do it, but that sentence is really needed, and I don't feel comfortable trying to write it myself (both because I'm playing the part of independent reviewer, and because my grasp of the material is at best adequate). The pots should be in prose form, rather than a table. Truthfully, even with the table I'm having trouble following the logic of what's going on in the subsequent paragraphs. It seems as if presenting this material so a general audience can understand it — and, hopefully, discern something of the excitement in it — is a challenge. (Sorry I couldn't get to this sooner.) 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 4056434 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:58, 15 December 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Needs some explanation for the general reader, who doesn't already know how this stuff works. What is Last 16, group winners? (I believe I understand, but only because I've been reviewing a bunch of articles on this stuff lately.) I imagine one well-chosen sentence would do it, but that sentence is really needed, and I don't feel comfortable trying to write it myself (both because I'm playing the part of independent reviewer, and because my grasp of the material is at best adequate). The pots should be in prose form, rather than a table. Truthfully, even with the table I'm having trouble following the logic of what's going on in the subsequent paragraphs. It seems as if presenting this material so a general audience can understand it — and, hopefully, discern something of the excitement in it — is a challenge. (Sorry I couldn't get to this sooner.) 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.

UEFA source

I note, the UEFA source page looks just about unusable as it constantly updates so that any content there just flashes up for a few moments every once in a while and is gone most of the time. --Pi zero (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I was able to find a different computer from which the source page behaved itself. --Pi zero (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I hate history!!!

To be honest, the work required for this article is...Well, no words! Moving pieces here and there, and that is very frustrating for me to see, I have no idea how are you coping up with this!
117.198.191.162 (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm putting in an unreasonable effort, hoping to help an enthusiastic newcomer thrash out new ways that work. Generally we should be conservative about new things, a stick to formatting that's very simple to use — easy-to-use templates. For Wikinews to take off, as I hope we can help it do, review has to get easier, and experimental or verbose formatting isn't easy.

That said, formatting is the smaller part of the difficulty in this current review. I remind that review is made more difficult by any fact in a synthesis article that isn't in the cited sources; or is in the cited sources but to recognize it there one needs inside knowledge about different ways of saying things. These articles are routinely containing stuff like that, and they create lots of additional review labor. This should have been maybe a one-hour review (hopefully semi-automated assistants can further reduce that figure), while instead I'm about four hours or so in. I don't want to discourage; but I really hope we'll get things more streamlined. --Pi zero (talk) 19:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

@Pi zero: In case, (just to remove confusion) it is me, acagastya. I am at home, and here, my ISP has dynamic IP.
117.217.115.106 (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 4062583 [Passed]

Revision 4062583 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Invoking OR doesn't obviate the need for sourcing. See the above remarks on difficulty. I sound awfully strict, to me. Glad to have you on the project. (Now, let's keep working on making this go more smoothly. :-) 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 4062583 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:18, 16 December 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Invoking OR doesn't obviate the need for sourcing. See the above remarks on difficulty. I sound awfully strict, to me. Glad to have you on the project. (Now, let's keep working on making this go more smoothly. :-) 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.

CAT

{{Editprotected}} Add category Atlético Madrid.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 03:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 04:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)