If this had been submitted for review when it was evidently first written, the current lede would have been sufficient, though not ideal. Status was ambiguous; reporter was notified at the time, but didn't act on it at the time. Now it's three weeks old; that would be getting long in the tooth even for a full-blown interview, and since this isn't quite a full-blown interview, I'm inclined to think this is no longer fresh.
The lede ought to make apparent the original reporting facet of this. The longer after the event, the more important for the lede to emphasis the original aspect. I'm not convinced it can be made strong enough to make up for the elapsed time.
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.
If this had been submitted for review when it was evidently first written, the current lede would have been sufficient, though not ideal. Status was ambiguous; reporter was notified at the time, but didn't act on it at the time. Now it's three weeks old; that would be getting long in the tooth even for a full-blown interview, and since this isn't quite a full-blown interview, I'm inclined to think this is no longer fresh.
The lede ought to make apparent the original reporting facet of this. The longer after the event, the more important for the lede to emphasis the original aspect. I'm not convinced it can be made strong enough to make up for the elapsed time.
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.
