Talk:Early returns in Egyptian polls show victory for Islamist parties

Review of revision 1333489 [Not ready]

Revision 1333489 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: There is no mention of "Al Nour" in any of the sources. Given the title change, this is likely because the NYT article was completely rewritten between access for synthesis and access for review; NYT seems to like to do that, replacing the earlier version wholesale. It's actually a good reason to avoid using NYT entirely. Don't say things like "The Islamist parties' success will not be welcomed by the liberal and leftist...". You're both putting words into their mouths and making a prediction about the future (cf. WN:SG#Reporting on future events); it's a toss-up whether to say that's a problem for NPOV or style, so for good measure I checked both boxes. (I ran into trouble a day or two ago because I understated the problems in a review, causing an extra whole iteration of the review process.) There could of course be other problems past the point in the review process I got to. But those are the points I'm aware of. 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 1333489 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:55, 1 December 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: There is no mention of "Al Nour" in any of the sources. Given the title change, this is likely because the NYT article was completely rewritten between access for synthesis and access for review; NYT seems to like to do that, replacing the earlier version wholesale. It's actually a good reason to avoid using NYT entirely. Don't say things like "The Islamist parties' success will not be welcomed by the liberal and leftist...". You're both putting words into their mouths and making a prediction about the future (cf. WN:SG#Reporting on future events); it's a toss-up whether to say that's a problem for NPOV or style, so for good measure I checked both boxes. (I ran into trouble a day or two ago because I understated the problems in a review, causing an extra whole iteration of the review process.) There could of course be other problems past the point in the review process I got to. But those are the points I'm aware of. 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.

Point 1: yes there is. The Guardian source: "Al-Nour, a more conservative Salafist party, looks likely to secure second place." There is differences in spelling between sources, so I went with Wikipedia's spelling ("Al Nour").

Point 2: Hmm, okay. There is mention from one of the protestors in the articles about how he is surprised about the success of the Salafis. But I can rephrase/remove if it isn't acceptable. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

• You're right about Al Nour, I forgot the wildly inconsistent treatment of al; it's mentioned by WSET too. If what you're saying about it is multi-sourced, attribution won't be necessary (would have to check this point more closely).
• The use of future tense is problematic as noted, and one also oughtn't paint the whole of a group with sentiments expressed by one person in it. Some sort of rephrasing is called for.
• Don't forget to resubmit for review when ready. (I can probably get back for another review in a bit.)

--Pi zero (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1333595 [Passed]

Revision 1333595 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1333595 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:26, 1 December 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.