Talk:International team of scientists reports on Antarctic lead pollution

Review of revision 2774250 [Not ready]

Revision 2774250 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:42, 30 July 2014 (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 ready: Comments by reviewer: Articles on Wikinews need to be atleast three paragraphs long. 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 2774250 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:42, 30 July 2014 (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 ready: Comments by reviewer: Articles on Wikinews need to be atleast three paragraphs long. 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.

Review of revision 2777384 [Not ready]

Revision 2777384 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: It appears this has gone stale waiting for review. There are couple of things you could do. The first is find discussion about it published in the past 2-3 days and add it here. The second would be to move it to your user space. 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 2777384 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: It appears this has gone stale waiting for review. There are couple of things you could do. The first is find discussion about it published in the past 2-3 days and add it here. The second would be to move it to your user space. 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.

Review of revision 2786961 [Passed]

Revision 2786961 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This is right on the edge, for elapsed time since the focal event (WN:Freshness). As of today it's no longer possible to refer to the event date by day of the week; usually I'd go with that interpretation of the faintly ambiguous "within seven days". However, this is a solidly relevant story, with new information come to light introduced, an all-around solid effort made, including on timeliness, and it's a scientific result rather than part of a rapidly developing political or military situation or whatever. It doesn't seem likely publishing this would increase the likelihood of it happening again (and if it ever did become a problem we could always tighten up that part of our standards a bit). So, I'm allowing it. 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 2786961 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:51, 4 August 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This is right on the edge, for elapsed time since the focal event (WN:Freshness). As of today it's no longer possible to refer to the event date by day of the week; usually I'd go with that interpretation of the faintly ambiguous "within seven days". However, this is a solidly relevant story, with new information come to light introduced, an all-around solid effort made, including on timeliness, and it's a scientific result rather than part of a rapidly developing political or military situation or whatever. It doesn't seem likely publishing this would increase the likelihood of it happening again (and if it ever did become a problem we could always tighten up that part of our standards a bit). So, I'm allowing it. 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.