Talk:U.S. judge blocks second Trump travel ban

Review of revision 4295702 [Not ready]

Revision 4295702 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Argh. The first sentence, which is the core description of the focal event in the article, appears to me to be too far off for me to adjust it sufficiently during review without disqualifying myself from review. Judges always (if they're doing their job right) strive to make as narrow a ruling as possible. The judge apparently did not rule that the executive order constitutes religious discrimination, but rather that the challenge on grounds of religious discrimination has a realistic chance of succeeding. Also, to justify blocking the executive order, it looks like the judge also needs to be satisfied that the order, which might well be overturned, would cause irreparable harm if not blocked; so it's significant (and probably worth mentioning, as at least one of the sources did) that the judge concluded it would cause irreparable harm. And the single most important thing about the ruling also isn't in that first sentence of the lede: that the judge halted execution of (parts of) the executive order. How to redress these problems is just too involved for me to undertake. 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 4295702 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Argh. The first sentence, which is the core description of the focal event in the article, appears to me to be too far off for me to adjust it sufficiently during review without disqualifying myself from review. Judges always (if they're doing their job right) strive to make as narrow a ruling as possible. The judge apparently did not rule that the executive order constitutes religious discrimination, but rather that the challenge on grounds of religious discrimination has a realistic chance of succeeding. Also, to justify blocking the executive order, it looks like the judge also needs to be satisfied that the order, which might well be overturned, would cause irreparable harm if not blocked; so it's significant (and probably worth mentioning, as at least one of the sources did) that the judge concluded it would cause irreparable harm. And the single most important thing about the ruling also isn't in that first sentence of the lede: that the judge halted execution of (parts of) the executive order. How to redress these problems is just too involved for me to undertake. 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 4295754 [Passed]

Revision 4295754 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4295754 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:18, 16 March 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.