Talk:Australia and Afghanistan to be represented at NATO summit

Review of revision 2852342 [Passed]

Revision 2852342 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I wondered about the headline, but it's a tricky sort-of-dual focus to capture neatly. The cited article in The Australian is "premium content", which is to say, pay-to-read. Cut, along with the sentence explicitly sourced to it. The other sentence I couldn't verify was the one about the Taliban. I didn't see the Taliban mentioned in the sources I could access; it could have been in the one I couldn't get to, of course. The claim would clearly need to be attributed to somebody if it were kept at all; given its subjectivity, a strong attribution such as a politician would be advisable; and it wasn't supported by the Related news (which is fair game to treat as a source). Cutting it was an unpalatable option, since everyone talking about the stalemate mentions both economy and security, so that the paragraph would feel oddly biasing without the security aspect. The whole sentence on the subject in the Related News would contain a lot of info not overlapping with the one submitted here. However, the last clause of the sentence from the previous article offers approximate overlap with a subset of what was being said here; so I ran with that. 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 2852342 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I wondered about the headline, but it's a tricky sort-of-dual focus to capture neatly. The cited article in The Australian is "premium content", which is to say, pay-to-read. Cut, along with the sentence explicitly sourced to it. The other sentence I couldn't verify was the one about the Taliban. I didn't see the Taliban mentioned in the sources I could access; it could have been in the one I couldn't get to, of course. The claim would clearly need to be attributed to somebody if it were kept at all; given its subjectivity, a strong attribution such as a politician would be advisable; and it wasn't supported by the Related news (which is fair game to treat as a source). Cutting it was an unpalatable option, since everyone talking about the stalemate mentions both economy and security, so that the paragraph would feel oddly biasing without the security aspect. The whole sentence on the subject in the Related News would contain a lot of info not overlapping with the one submitted here. However, the last clause of the sentence from the previous article offers approximate overlap with a subset of what was being said here; so I ran with that. 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.