Talk:Chile knock out defending champions Uruguay from Copa America 2015

Review of revision 3630309 [Not ready]

Revision 3630309 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:28, 27 June 2015 (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: Everything in the article should be verifiable (by preference, of course, easily verifiable) from the cited sources. The two sources you actually cited here cover, as best I can tell, about half the text of the article, and very little of the table at the bottom. You mention two things in html comments that you say you didn't list because you weren't sure if you should; if you used them you should list them. I did take a look at them, though I had trouble getting the second one to load; from looking over the first one, it seemed that there were still going to be things in the article that weren't covered. There's also some sort of external page linked from inside the table; that table is, after all, part of the article and so shouldn't contain external links, but also it appears to be yet another source and so, if used (which I strongly suspect it was) should be listed. 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 3630309 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:28, 27 June 2015 (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: Everything in the article should be verifiable (by preference, of course, easily verifiable) from the cited sources. The two sources you actually cited here cover, as best I can tell, about half the text of the article, and very little of the table at the bottom. You mention two things in html comments that you say you didn't list because you weren't sure if you should; if you used them you should list them. I did take a look at them, though I had trouble getting the second one to load; from looking over the first one, it seemed that there were still going to be things in the article that weren't covered. There's also some sort of external page linked from inside the table; that table is, after all, part of the article and so shouldn't contain external links, but also it appears to be yet another source and so, if used (which I strongly suspect it was) should be listed. 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.

Some problems of the links

@Pi zero: Sir, there are some problems.

• The external link in the table (http://estadisticas.conmebol.com/html/v3/index.html?channel=deportes.futbol.copaamerica.215744&lang=es_LA&theme=copaamerica) is not in English.
  • It was copied from WP. And, when I checked the previous event (i.e. 2011 Copa America), those links could not be opened as Error 404 content not found on this server message appears.
• Details at (http://www.ca2015.com/en/match/stats/1947923) are there, but after the event, once the domain name expires, I am pretty sure 404 error message will appear.
• Minute by minute details at (www.goal.com/en/match/chile-vs-uruguay/1947923/live-commentary?ICID=MP_MS_3) is not an article. Goal.com sponsors the official website of this event, and thus, I referred it. Now, I am adding them, but I have this query. Once article is published, and then, if the sources break, what to do?
  aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 03:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Still, my mind was not ready to add those sources (which are not news articles). I took the pain and found this link (http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/33085788) which covers much information. It is a new link, and I found out while drafting a new article. I had not omitted any of the links purposely. I hope this link will satisfy it!
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 03:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Sources don't have to be news articles; they have to be trust-worthy for the purpose for which they're being used (even somebody's blog can be trust-worthy for some purposes, such as, most obviously, for what that person said on their blog). Also note, the Sources section is documentation of where you actually got your information from.

Sources do sometimes disappear later. Documenting where the information came from matters regardless of whether it's still there now; and later, if it does disappear from there, readers still know that the reviewer verified it at the time of review. --Pi zero (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3631998 [Passed]

Revision 3631998 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Please make sure every fact in an article is verifiable from the sources listed in the Sources section before submitting the article for review. It's enormously expensive, in reviewer's time-and-effort, to cope with something in a submitted article that isn't in the listed sources, whereas determining that something is in the listed sources should be straightforward (and if it isn't straightforward, the reporter should arrange before submission to provide some sort of help to the reviewer, such as an html comment embedded in the article saying just where in which source to find some particular info, or a note on the article talk page). 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 3631998 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:25, 27 June 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Please make sure every fact in an article is verifiable from the sources listed in the Sources section before submitting the article for review. It's enormously expensive, in reviewer's time-and-effort, to cope with something in a submitted article that isn't in the listed sources, whereas determining that something is in the listed sources should be straightforward (and if it isn't straightforward, the reporter should arrange before submission to provide some sort of help to the reviewer, such as an html comment embedded in the article saying just where in which source to find some particular info, or a note on the article talk page). 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.