Talk:Canberra central business district trials urinals

journalist notes

The main story was also reprinted in the Sydney Morning Herald, which could qualify it as a second news source though probably not? It was also discussed on The Riot-ACT but they were mostly using the Canberra Times article. It does not look they did a follow up. The poll can be found at http://www.canberratimes.com.au/polls/urinal-trial-20130315-2g4e9.html beyond the embedding in the one article. It closed today. --LauraHale (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1849438 [Not ready]

Revision 1849438 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Appears to meet usual timeliness guidelines for synthesis, with event within a week and new information come to light currently. However, riotact appears, as best I can tell, to be a lightly moderated group blog and therefore not a trustworthy source for most purposes. The FAQ says anyone can submit, and editorial oversight does not alter content. 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 1849438 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:37, 20 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Appears to meet usual timeliness guidelines for synthesis, with event within a week and new information come to light currently. However, riotact appears, as best I can tell, to be a lightly moderated group blog and therefore not a trustworthy source for most purposes. The FAQ says anyone can submit, and editorial oversight does not alter content. 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.

Press release

The press release referenced in the Riot-ACT article has been passed on to scoop.--LauraHale (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1850968 [Passed]

Revision 1850968 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The doors are also illustrated on a picture in the March 15 Canberra Times source. 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 1850968 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:03, 21 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The doors are also illustrated on a picture in the March 15 Canberra Times source. 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.