Talk:US president Trump ousts national security advisor Bolton

Notes for the reviewer

• I wrote this with relative dates assuming it cannot possibly get reviewed in the next 30 minutes.
• This could easily be much longer with reactions from all kinds of people, but I think the most material and relevant facts are present.
• Don't worry about the red-links for Mike Pompeo; I intend to add him to Category:News articles by person before this gets reviewed.

Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

• The choice of "ousts" in the title was a hard one, but I kept it even though dozens of other sources used it. I must say I agree with them. It is the best word. While there's some doubt about whether it was a firing or a resignation, it seems clear it wasn't an entirely voluntary resignation. And exactly because so many sources used the same word, I don't think we need to be concerned with "distance from source" in this case.

Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• I just noticed the opening sentence was altered in this edit and/or subsequent ones. "Bolton tendered it the next morning." is currently a separate statement of fact, which I never intended to be in the lede. It was always supposed to be attached to the first sentence of Trump's announcement as "which was tendered the next morning". It needs to be connected to Trump's announcement or else the subsequent paragraphs do not make sense. --SVTCobra 21:45, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I hadn't read your remark yet when I edited the lede to pull the resignation-the-next-morning into the attribution to Trump. --Pi zero (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4511993 [Passed]

Revision 4511993 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: My first thought on first reading was that the discrepancy between Bolton's account and Trump's was a major feature of this story, which I'd have tried to mention in the lede. On reflection at the end of the review, it occurred to me that the omission becomes more conspicuous the longer the lede is, so making it much shorter could further alleviate the problem — keeping in mind reporter's remarks on the talk page about including even less in the lede. I'd already separated Trump's and Bolton's accounts into separate paragarphs so that Bolton's wouldn't be an easily-missed afterthought. And it occurred to me that the last sentence of the lede was background not needed to explain the significance/establish relevance; so the lede could, in fact, be greatly shortened with with minimal footprint by the reviewer. 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 4511993 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:03, 12 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: My first thought on first reading was that the discrepancy between Bolton's account and Trump's was a major feature of this story, which I'd have tried to mention in the lede. On reflection at the end of the review, it occurred to me that the omission becomes more conspicuous the longer the lede is, so making it much shorter could further alleviate the problem — keeping in mind reporter's remarks on the talk page about including even less in the lede. I'd already separated Trump's and Bolton's accounts into separate paragarphs so that Bolton's wouldn't be an easily-missed afterthought. And it occurred to me that the last sentence of the lede was background not needed to explain the significance/establish relevance; so the lede could, in fact, be greatly shortened with with minimal footprint by the reviewer. 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.

Comments from 'original' reporter

Yes, I did not want to emphasize the difference between Trump and Bolton. It's just noise and irrelevant. But it was a key feature in coverage and I tried to downplay it as much as possible (like with the word 'slightly' which was deemed too POV). But I am happy overall that we were able to publish this news. Thanks, --SVTCobra 23:19, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Good, then, that we converged on something within-tolerance for both of us. --Pi zero (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)