There were three passages and a full paragraph I didn't find in the accessible sources; that much could certainly have justified a not-ready review, but I chose to cut them instead (at the end of the review; I'd been postponing the decision whether to cut or not-ready). The paragraph is presumably content meant to be verified by the off-line source. I'd removed that off-line source early on; it's of no use for review since it doesn't come with access for consultation, and honestly it doesn't look like something likely to be available on the internet (not just a matter of omitted url). I suspect what happened here was that information was drawn from Wikipedia with intent to providing sourcing later. Please don't do that. If there's information on Wikipedia you want to use, find a trust-worthy source or sources (which may or may not be cited by Wikipedia) and proceed from there, so the information comes from a trust-worthy source rather than making claims first and hoping to consult trust-worthy sources later. This review has been vastly more difficult than it ought to have been, partly because of the large number of sources (there are things that can be done to help with that — embedded html comments, remarks on the talk page) but also partly because, from a reviewer's perspective, determining that something isn't verifiable from the sources (especially, from a large number of sources) is very arduous.
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.
There were three passages and a full paragraph I didn't find in the accessible sources; that much could certainly have justified a not-ready review, but I chose to cut them instead (at the end of the review; I'd been postponing the decision whether to cut or not-ready). The paragraph is presumably content meant to be verified by the off-line source. I'd removed that off-line source early on; it's of no use for review since it doesn't come with access for consultation, and honestly it doesn't look like something likely to be available on the internet (not just a matter of omitted url). I suspect what happened here was that information was drawn from Wikipedia with intent to providing sourcing later. Please don't do that. If there's information on Wikipedia you want to use, find a trust-worthy source or sources (which may or may not be cited by Wikipedia) and proceed from there, so the information comes from a trust-worthy source rather than making claims first and hoping to consult trust-worthy sources later. This review has been vastly more difficult than it ought to have been, partly because of the large number of sources (there are things that can be done to help with that — embedded html comments, remarks on the talk page) but also partly because, from a reviewer's perspective, determining that something isn't verifiable from the sources (especially, from a large number of sources) is very arduous.
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.
