Be very careful about who said what. Our neutrality policy requires us to avoid asserting controversial or subjective claims as fact; see WN:Attribution; and readers need to know where information comes from, so they can think about where it comes from and what that means about it (it's important that we encourage them to think about assessing claims).
I had a number of verification problems. Verification problems are expensive for the reviewer; try to not cause them. If you suspect something that's there may be difficult for a reviewer to find, leave a helpful note on the collaboration page.
There was the claim that the CMHC had expressed concern the large inventory of unsold homes could affect employment. An embedded video said something about the connection to jobs, but it wasn't clear to me who the video was by or where it got its information from.
The Manhattan thing, which was also the occasion of a somewhat-overlength distinctive passage identical to source, was not from the quarterly report afaict and needed at least a bit of attribution to make that perfectly clear.
A source clearly indicated that Saskatoon was not assessed as highly overvaluated.
Didn't turn up evidence of Vancouver and Toronto moderating price growth (nor of the claim that those two are the two most expensive housing markets).
More explanation would have been a good thing. One case I felt needed addressing and appeared to be straightforward enough to fall within the purview of an independent reviewer: it seemed the whole article would be useless to a general audience if they didn't have the information that CMHC is government-owned, without which the reader lacks context for estimating the credibility of their claims.
I hesitated over the intialism in the headline. You may note what the Wikinews:Style guide has to say about this aspect of headlines. I didn't see an easy way to unobtrusively slip the government-owned aspect into the headline, though, and either with or without that information, it seemed to me, the full name of the thing wouldn't actually be of any more help to the reader than the initialism, so since the full name is quite long and would gum up the headline rather badly, I let it stand.
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.
Be very careful about who said what. Our neutrality policy requires us to avoid asserting controversial or subjective claims as fact; see WN:Attribution; and readers need to know where information comes from, so they can think about where it comes from and what that means about it (it's important that we encourage them to think about assessing claims).
I had a number of verification problems. Verification problems are expensive for the reviewer; try to not cause them. If you suspect something that's there may be difficult for a reviewer to find, leave a helpful note on the collaboration page.
There was the claim that the CMHC had expressed concern the large inventory of unsold homes could affect employment. An embedded video said something about the connection to jobs, but it wasn't clear to me who the video was by or where it got its information from.
The Manhattan thing, which was also the occasion of a somewhat-overlength distinctive passage identical to source, was not from the quarterly report afaict and needed at least a bit of attribution to make that perfectly clear.
A source clearly indicated that Saskatoon was not assessed as highly overvaluated.
Didn't turn up evidence of Vancouver and Toronto moderating price growth (nor of the claim that those two are the two most expensive housing markets).
More explanation would have been a good thing. One case I felt needed addressing and appeared to be straightforward enough to fall within the purview of an independent reviewer: it seemed the whole article would be useless to a general audience if they didn't have the information that CMHC is government-owned, without which the reader lacks context for estimating the credibility of their claims.
I hesitated over the intialism in the headline. You may note what the Wikinews:Style guide has to say about this aspect of headlines. I didn't see an easy way to unobtrusively slip the government-owned aspect into the headline, though, and either with or without that information, it seemed to me, the full name of the thing wouldn't actually be of any more help to the reader than the initialism, so since the full name is quite long and would gum up the headline rather badly, I let it stand.
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.
