Talk:Wikinews Shorts: February 4, 2014

Review of revision 2372207 [Not ready]

Revision 2372207 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: Each item needs two sources, just as with a full article (and, as with a full article, we recommend reading all the sources before beginning to write). This is part of why shorts haven't been a popular article form lately; it can be made to work, but it's not as much of a labor savings as one might think versus a minimal article on each of the items, neither to write nor to review — and for review it has the added awkwardness that problems with some of them can hold up publication of the others. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Er, there's a "February 10, 2012" in there. Pretty sure you didn't mean that. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 2372207 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: Each item needs two sources, just as with a full article (and, as with a full article, we recommend reading all the sources before beginning to write). This is part of why shorts haven't been a popular article form lately; it can be made to work, but it's not as much of a labor savings as one might think versus a minimal article on each of the items, neither to write nor to review — and for review it has the added awkwardness that problems with some of them can hold up publication of the others. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Er, there's a "February 10, 2012" in there. Pretty sure you didn't mean that. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

A separate story...

...from the first two shorts (I had switched it to past tense, per the style guide). These briefs appear to be of decent size, meeting an article size requirement (3 paragraphs). I took the liberty to merge the first two into a separate story, since they are closely related and the last one — alas — currently relies on a single source with no more sources I could find. --Gryllida 22:34, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2380091 [Not ready]

Revision 2380091 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This is on the last ticks of the clock at the outside end of the usual discretionary period on the way to staleness. Right off hand, it looks like the "two" sources for the Asian Hitler story are identical; and the Japanese school story only has one source for its focus. 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 2380091 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This is on the last ticks of the clock at the outside end of the usual discretionary period on the way to staleness. Right off hand, it looks like the "two" sources for the Asian Hitler story are identical; and the Japanese school story only has one source for its focus. 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.