Talk:Cameron, Salmond sign deal for referendum on Scottish independence

Comments

• The headline needs a lot of work. International readers won't necessarily know who Cameron and Salmond are, let alone be able to deduce what sort of referendum they might have signed a deal on, so the current headline is highly uninformative. Also, btw, Wikinews headlines use sentence-case capitalization (downstyle) rather than title-case capitalization (upstyle). So even if the current headline were okay, the last three words would be lower-case ("sign referendum deal").
• "setting out their stalls" is an idiom international readers may not recognize (I hadn't encountered it myself, though I can readily see what it must mean); it may be the better part of valor to avoid it.
• A point I'd be wary of is asserting as fact that Salmond believes something; who knows what any politician believes? The closest we can generally come is what they profess to believe, and it may be safer to attribute it to them rather than state it as fact.

I'm not likely to have a full review in me tonight (it's about 9pm where I am); what the morning may bring, ten or eleven hours from now, remains to be seen. --Pi zero (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1662484 [Not ready]

Revision 1662484 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I've found shortcomings on the sourcing for this. All facts presented need to be verifiable from the cited sources, excluding only "obvious" facts — and our standards for obviousness are quite high. An example of something truly obvious would be "Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland." Note that although Wikipedia is not itself a trust-worthy source, often a Wikipedia article will cite trust-worthy sources, which can then also be used as sources on Wikinews. Most of the article remains unchecked, so there could be more. The things I'm aware of are more-or-less background detail. The first detail I looked for and didn't find was the assertion that Darling "heads" Better Together; the one source that mentions him (BBC) doesn't say this, though it mentions he's "fighting for the no group". I didn't find anything about which party supports which position. The explanation of devolution in the last paragraph is interesting and helpful if true, but I don't know how accurate its details are. I also don't see the term "devo-max" anywhere in the sources. 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 1662484 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:56, 17 October 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I've found shortcomings on the sourcing for this. All facts presented need to be verifiable from the cited sources, excluding only "obvious" facts — and our standards for obviousness are quite high. An example of something truly obvious would be "Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland." Note that although Wikipedia is not itself a trust-worthy source, often a Wikipedia article will cite trust-worthy sources, which can then also be used as sources on Wikinews. Most of the article remains unchecked, so there could be more. The things I'm aware of are more-or-less background detail. The first detail I looked for and didn't find was the assertion that Darling "heads" Better Together; the one source that mentions him (BBC) doesn't say this, though it mentions he's "fighting for the no group". I didn't find anything about which party supports which position. The explanation of devolution in the last paragraph is interesting and helpful if true, but I don't know how accurate its details are. I also don't see the term "devo-max" anywhere in the sources. 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.

Hi, I live in Scotland and so I have personal experience of the referendum and the two campaigns. If you check the various parties' websites or search for 'Scottish Green Party independence ' on google, you will find their positions on independence. Alistair Darling's Wikipedia page also states that he is the leader of the better together campaign and various media scourges here have reported him as being the leader of this campaign.

Don't ask the reviewer to launch a research project across the internet to verify your material; that's not the reviewer's part. If the information is available out there, please provide sources for it in the Sources section (which is also a record of where the information came from, a second reason to provide them). I remarked above about Wikipedia versus trust-worthy sources. --Pi zero (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound rude! Thank you for your help with reviewing my article. I have added the sources I was referring to to the sources section.

No offense was taken. We learn to be fairly blunt in our explanations; there often isn't time here to explain things more than once, so we have to try, as best we can, to say things so as to be understood the first time. --Pi zero (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1663766 [Passed]

Revision 1663766 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There were sourcing problems here. On request, the writer diligently provided sourcing for the positions of political parties; however, various other details were unsupported. I removed a couple of passages, including the entire final paragraph, and for another passage ("devo-max") I resorted to a source referenced by one of the cited sources, drawing it into the Sources section (an action I consider just about within what an independent reviewer can reasonably do, given the indirect reference, but beyond what the reviewer could be expected to do or ordinarily would do). Unfortunately, those two items, devo-max and devolution, were overlooked from an earlier review comment that asked for sourcing for them. See also the detailed history of article 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 1663766 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:25, 18 October 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There were sourcing problems here. On request, the writer diligently provided sourcing for the positions of political parties; however, various other details were unsupported. I removed a couple of passages, including the entire final paragraph, and for another passage ("devo-max") I resorted to a source referenced by one of the cited sources, drawing it into the Sources section (an action I consider just about within what an independent reviewer can reasonably do, given the indirect reference, but beyond what the reviewer could be expected to do or ordinarily would do). Unfortunately, those two items, devo-max and devolution, were overlooked from an earlier review comment that asked for sourcing for them. See also the detailed history of article 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.