Talk:Bill Cosby's lawyers accuse prosecutors of racial bias in jury selection for sexual assault trial

Review of revision 4316695 [Not ready]

Revision 4316695 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Focus? 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: The headline, lede, and body should agree on what the focus is. Here the headline disagrees with the other two. There is also a bit of an anomaly on the sources list, in that only one source corroborates the focus of the lede/body. 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 4316695 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:05, 24 May 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Focus? 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: The headline, lede, and body should agree on what the focus is. Here the headline disagrees with the other two. There is also a bit of an anomaly on the sources list, in that only one source corroborates the focus of the lede/body. 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 4316824 [Passed]

Revision 4316824 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The Varinsky mention and material from there to the end of that paragraph were problematic. I saw nothing to indicate he had been engaged by either side of this trial; on the contrary, the sense I got from the source was that they were reporting things he had said about the trial from an outsider's perspective. The later stuff in the paragraph was presented as anonymous speculation, which is no-go for Wikinews. On extensive examination of the source, Varinsky is cited as the source of some parts of that speculation, and Varinsky (unlike Time or AP) is suitable for attribution. So it was possible to salvage some of that material; I considered cautiously before doing so, but in the end it seemed to me to be almost all cutting, with a slight introduction of attribution of someone already mentioned (though the original reason for the mention is part of what was cut); and I kept in mind that the rest of the review had not required deep intervention and that removing the Varinsky-and-following text altogether would leave an awkward gap in the flow of the article. The selection process for Wednesday has been reported on; but that is not actually the focus of the article, is only maybe a couple of hours old, and it wasn't apparent that it had involved any dramatic new developments in this story, so I decided not to delay our publication for 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 4316824 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The Varinsky mention and material from there to the end of that paragraph were problematic. I saw nothing to indicate he had been engaged by either side of this trial; on the contrary, the sense I got from the source was that they were reporting things he had said about the trial from an outsider's perspective. The later stuff in the paragraph was presented as anonymous speculation, which is no-go for Wikinews. On extensive examination of the source, Varinsky is cited as the source of some parts of that speculation, and Varinsky (unlike Time or AP) is suitable for attribution. So it was possible to salvage some of that material; I considered cautiously before doing so, but in the end it seemed to me to be almost all cutting, with a slight introduction of attribution of someone already mentioned (though the original reason for the mention is part of what was cut); and I kept in mind that the rest of the review had not required deep intervention and that removing the Varinsky-and-following text altogether would leave an awkward gap in the flow of the article. The selection process for Wednesday has been reported on; but that is not actually the focus of the article, is only maybe a couple of hours old, and it wasn't apparent that it had involved any dramatic new developments in this story, so I decided not to delay our publication for 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.

Adding link from Wikipedia

{{edit protected}} en:w:Bill Cosby sexual assault allegations should be added somewhere in the article. Should it be in the separate section "Sister links" or piped within the text? --George Ho (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Unsure if advisable so log after publication. --SVTCobra 16:27, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

If added, it would go in a Sister links section. --Pi zero (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not particularly inclined to add it, myself; we didn't at the time, after all. --Pi zero (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Not done It's a nice thing to have in the article, but not a required element. --SVTCobra 00:49, 10 May 2018 (UTC)