It appears the Telegraph article was changed, replacing part of the direct quote with paraphrasing. Recalling the principle that if there's just one way to fix something, there's no moral difference between the reviewer fixing it or requiring someone else to fix it, I checked that the complete quote is, in fact, in lots of news articles all over the internet; a particular obvious source is "House of Commons Hansard Debates for 02 July 2014 (pt 0001)" — United Kingdom Parliament, July 2, 2014. I'd feel uncomfortable about adding a source to the article, but it hardly seems needful; I think principle is satisfied here. No doubt there are other perfectly reasonable ways a reviewer might deal with the situation; just for one, curtail the direct quote and put some explanatory bits in square brackets.
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.
It appears the Telegraph article was changed, replacing part of the direct quote with paraphrasing. Recalling the principle that if there's just one way to fix something, there's no moral difference between the reviewer fixing it or requiring someone else to fix it, I checked that the complete quote is, in fact, in lots of news articles all over the internet; a particular obvious source is "House of Commons Hansard Debates for 02 July 2014 (pt 0001)" — United Kingdom Parliament, July 2, 2014. I'd feel uncomfortable about adding a source to the article, but it hardly seems needful; I think principle is satisfied here. No doubt there are other perfectly reasonable ways a reviewer might deal with the situation; just for one, curtail the direct quote and put some explanatory bits in square brackets.
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.
