Talk:UK voting age to be lowered to 16, among other reforms
Add topicStale
[edit]The article went stale while waiting for a review, unfortunately. If there is more recent news coverage for the event, the article can be refocused on the newest event and resubmitted for review. We call this gatwicking and you can read about it here: WN:Gatwicking. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 14:10, 18 July 2025 (UTC); Edited, 00:58, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Has it not been just over one day since the event happened? Guidelines give an estimate of about five to seven days before an article will become stale. There are recent examples of articles being published up to six days after an event, see Ugandan military helicopter crashes in Mogadishu, Somalia or Cuomo concedes to Mamdani in Democratic primary election for New York City mayor, and it doesn't seem very uncommon at all for articles to be published the day after an event on Wikinews, for example Bangladesh beat hosts Myanmar 2–1 to qualify for 2026 AFC Women's Asian Cup (published July 3rd, “On July 2”), Third person charged in relation to Pheobe Bishop's alleged murder (“yesterday”). I really don't think the article has gone stale yet. Coleisforeditor (talk) 14:22, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
- You are absolutely right. I must have clicked on the wrong article in my under-caffeinated state. Many apologies.Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Reviewer) 00:56, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
- Notifying you that I have replaced the {{stale}} marker with a {{quick review}} marker, as I believe you have ceased editing for today and the article may actually become stale soon. I have made my dispute with the placement clear above, and hope that this is resolved shortly. Coleisforeditor (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2025 (UTC)
Review of revision 4870364 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 4870364 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Nice work bringing this article together! Before your next submission, be sure to check out our Style guide for tips on formatting dates, writing clear image descriptions, and polishing structure. Also keep in mind that, unlike Wikipedia, we only include sources that are directly used in the article and we leave out any that are redundant. As part of the review, a few changes were made to get the article ready for publication: paragraphs were re-ordered to better follow the inverted pyramid style, the source section was cleaned up and formatted per {{source}}, and a few minor edits were made for clarity, attribution, and tense. I also added relevant categories, clarified acronym use, and included an image description. 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 4870364 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:21, 23 July 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Nice work bringing this article together! Before your next submission, be sure to check out our Style guide for tips on formatting dates, writing clear image descriptions, and polishing structure. Also keep in mind that, unlike Wikipedia, we only include sources that are directly used in the article and we leave out any that are redundant. As part of the review, a few changes were made to get the article ready for publication: paragraphs were re-ordered to better follow the inverted pyramid style, the source section was cleaned up and formatted per {{source}}, and a few minor edits were made for clarity, attribution, and tense. I also added relevant categories, clarified acronym use, and included an image description. 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. |