Talk:British explorer Ranulph Fiennes leaves Antarctic expedition after frostbite

Review of revision 1823486 [Not ready]

Revision 1823486 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:19, 27 February 2013 (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: Needs updating; I hear he's actually been evacuated now. 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 1823486 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:19, 27 February 2013 (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: Needs updating; I hear he's actually been evacuated now. 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 1824152 [Not ready]

Revision 1824152 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:20, 27 February 2013 (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: Where do you get the updated information from? The Sources section should document where you actually got the information from, and should also verify all information in the article. Since the Sources section was not touched when the update was made, the listed sources, all of which are two days old, presumably don't cover it. I recommend against tagging an article for high-priority review simply because it's aging. Really, {{quick review}} should be reserved for situations where a story is "hot" but will chill quickly. 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 1824152 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:20, 27 February 2013 (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: Where do you get the updated information from? The Sources section should document where you actually got the information from, and should also verify all information in the article. Since the Sources section was not touched when the update was made, the listed sources, all of which are two days old, presumably don't cover it. I recommend against tagging an article for high-priority review simply because it's aging. Really, {{quick review}} should be reserved for situations where a story is "hot" but will chill quickly. 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.

Apologies, I forgot to add the BBC source in - hope it didn't waste too much time of yours. --Computron (talk) 19:25, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

No worries. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 19:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1825145 [Passed]

Revision 1825145 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Relatively minor grammar problems. Some passages a bit close to source. A few factual flubs. See the history of edits during review. 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 1825145 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:03, 28 February 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Relatively minor grammar problems. Some passages a bit close to source. A few factual flubs. See the history of edits during review. 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.