Talk:UK Supreme Court will not hear Julian Assange's appeal against extradition

Review of revision 4666404 [Not ready]

Revision 4666404 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: While two sources were cited, no information was taken from The Guardian which was not already available in Politico. Thus, if we were to follow Wikinews:Cite sources, you would need to "Only cite sources used for information — do not add sources if you did not include any information from them." Please diversify the content: this means adding unique quotes/content only found in The Guardian. 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 4666404 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:25, 15 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: While two sources were cited, no information was taken from The Guardian which was not already available in Politico. Thus, if we were to follow Wikinews:Cite sources, you would need to "Only cite sources used for information — do not add sources if you did not include any information from them." Please diversify the content: this means adding unique quotes/content only found in The Guardian. 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.

@JJLiu112: Excuse me, but what? The sole quote ("didn’t raise an arguable point of law") is in both sources adding to verifiability. I absolutely relied on both sources for this article. In fact, most of everything in this short article can be verified via either of them down to the four week time-frame for next moves by Assange's defense. This is the whole point of using two sources that confirm each other. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

In that case, I misunderstood policy. Thank you for clarifying. --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Please submit for re-review. --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Imho, "Only cite sources used for information — do not add sources if you did not include any information from them," would apply if I had listed X number of additional sources solely to make the article more credible. I could have listed a half dozen or more sources which would only have served to overburden the reviewer. Some authors are tempted to do just that, not realizing it slows down reviews. Nevertheless, this is part of the short article trial and two sources are the minimum. If you are unconvinced by my argument, I could add something that is uniquely from The Guardian before resubmitting for review. --SVTCobra 03:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4666415 [Passed]

Revision 4666415 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Recognised per talk. 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 4666415 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:11, 15 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Recognised per talk. 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.

@JJLiu112:, thanks. I removed the sister link w:Extradition law in the United States because it is the formal process by which a fugitive found in the United States is surrendered to another country ... Assange's case is the reverse and UK law is applicable here and I could not find a corresponding article for w:Extradition law in the United Kingdom, for example. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)