Some things to fix, but I've high hopes about this article: these aren't huge things. Some would be on their own marginally big enough to justify a not-ready; the sum of them is imo clearly worth a not-ready.
The airfield doesn't appear to be all that close to the border, no more so than implied by saying it's in eastern Ukraine; further from the border than Donetsk, afaics. The way the headline is phrased I wasn't immediately certain which side of the border the airfield is on; if Ukraine invaded Russia, that... would be news. The phrasing at the start of the lede is also odd, "troops from Ukraine seized...", as if the place seized were not part of Ukraine; and again the lede doesn't state clearly that the place seized is in Ukraine.
The second sentence of the lede came across oddly to me. Despite warnings, the acting PM said... something that doesn't seem to be exactly in contradiction to the warnings. The warnings seem reasonable to include in the lede, as part of the basic significance of the event; but I'm not sure the warnings are as strongly connected to the acting PM's statement as presented, and in fact it seems the acting PM's statement could be either in the lede or later than the lede.
Some passages here seem like analysis; our neutrality policy calls for such to be attributed to who said it, rather than presented by us as fact.
Second paragraph, first sentence. "The seizing of the airfield is apparently only the first task to be made by Ukraine against the Russian separatist group." This sounds like a claim, therefore should be attributed to who claimed it, and I'm not exactly sure what the claim means. I'd have expected some further explanation, but don't see any here.
Last para. Who fears this?
Second para, third sentence — awkward phrasing.
Third para, second half — despite? The Donetsk region as a whole borders Russia, iirc.
A couple of distinctive phrasings from the USA Today source that ought to be changed — "Moscow may walk out of" (this use of "Moscow" is imprecise anyway; it's about what Russia will do, isn't it?); "despite warnings from Moscow".
Something went sideways with the sources. Did you use an RT source? The cited source is in Bloomberg News, but also the date is different than you'd specified.
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.
Some things to fix, but I've high hopes about this article: these aren't huge things. Some would be on their own marginally big enough to justify a not-ready; the sum of them is imo clearly worth a not-ready.
The airfield doesn't appear to be all that close to the border, no more so than implied by saying it's in eastern Ukraine; further from the border than Donetsk, afaics. The way the headline is phrased I wasn't immediately certain which side of the border the airfield is on; if Ukraine invaded Russia, that... would be news. The phrasing at the start of the lede is also odd, "troops from Ukraine seized...", as if the place seized were not part of Ukraine; and again the lede doesn't state clearly that the place seized is in Ukraine.
The second sentence of the lede came across oddly to me. Despite warnings, the acting PM said... something that doesn't seem to be exactly in contradiction to the warnings. The warnings seem reasonable to include in the lede, as part of the basic significance of the event; but I'm not sure the warnings are as strongly connected to the acting PM's statement as presented, and in fact it seems the acting PM's statement could be either in the lede or later than the lede.
Some passages here seem like analysis; our neutrality policy calls for such to be attributed to who said it, rather than presented by us as fact.
Second paragraph, first sentence. "The seizing of the airfield is apparently only the first task to be made by Ukraine against the Russian separatist group." This sounds like a claim, therefore should be attributed to who claimed it, and I'm not exactly sure what the claim means. I'd have expected some further explanation, but don't see any here.
Last para. Who fears this?
Second para, third sentence — awkward phrasing.
Third para, second half — despite? The Donetsk region as a whole borders Russia, iirc.
A couple of distinctive phrasings from the USA Today source that ought to be changed — "Moscow may walk out of" (this use of "Moscow" is imprecise anyway; it's about what Russia will do, isn't it?); "despite warnings from Moscow".
Something went sideways with the sources. Did you use an RT source? The cited source is in Bloomberg News, but also the date is different than you'd specified.
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.
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.
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.
Done --Pi zero (talk) 17:32, 21 December 2014 (UTC)