Talk:According to recent study, deaths in India number roughly 4 million during COVID-19 pandemic

Review of revision 4628853 [Not ready]

Revision 4628853 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Hi@Rubbish computer:, thank you for writing this story. However, there is an obvious problem with this article. It does not revolve around any specific focal point. Even the death toll is an estimation, who estimated it is a mystery, in the first paragraph. There is nothing unique about 3.4-4.7m, than, in say, 5-6m. A news article should have a well-defined beginning and start date. If not, perhaps the story is way too broad and needs to be split. 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 4628853 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:00, 20 July 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Hi@Rubbish computer:, thank you for writing this story. However, there is an obvious problem with this article. It does not revolve around any specific focal point. Even the death toll is an estimation, who estimated it is a mystery, in the first paragraph. There is nothing unique about 3.4-4.7m, than, in say, 5-6m. A news article should have a well-defined beginning and start date. If not, perhaps the story is way too broad and needs to be split. 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.

Thank you Acagastya (t · c · b), will try to work on this later today. What would splitting involve? Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 15:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Well perhaps, you could refocus to the publication of the study, and then put the other things in the background, @Rubbish computer:?
•–• 15:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi yes that sounds great Acagastya (t · c · b) Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi I've added dates, etc using the study but not sure if I should submit it yet Acagastya (t · c · b). Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:38, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: Events from May are not new to be wn:newsworthy in July. Perhaps the study might be published this week and could focus on that.
•–• 16:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Hi Acagastya (t · c · b), it was published today fortunately so added that. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

This might need moving to a new title, such as one including "Study:". Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 16:55, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

@Rubbish computer: after you have refocused the article to speak about the report as the primary thing, can you please make sure the article conforms to wn:SG?
•–• 17:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes and cheers. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 17:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing

• Careful review of BBC source. Making sure OUR article isn't saying some stuff NOT SUPPORTED by sources. That is an important clarification.--Bddpaux (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Stuff from Guardian article looks good. --Bddpaux (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• I read about 60% of the CGD paper (a little heavy, numbers-wise).--Bddpaux (talk) 17:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
• Reuters stuff cross-references OK.--Bddpaux (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4630559 [Passed]

Revision 4630559 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good work. 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 4630559 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good work. 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.