This appears to have much the same problem as did the first version of the recent santorum-neologism article (which was successfully improved and published). The headline/lede needs to have a specific focus, forming the base of the inverted pyramid, and then there needs to be a middle of the pyramid. Otherwise the article is all the top of the pyramid —background— and it comes across rather encylopedic. Note the example (here) that continental drift is not news, while an earthquake may be (and, I'll add, a newly released report or study on continental drift may be newsworthy also). The human trafficking article had the Awareness Day, for example; and the neologism article had current events in the election cycle (whereas it had first been submitted as "this has been going on for nine years", which just isn't a news focus).
At this moment, I understand this story in less depth than I did the neologism one at its first review, so I'm not certain off hand what to suggest. But I'm submitting this review sooner rather than later, in the hope of maximizing how much [time] the authors have to work with in looking for a solution.
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.
This appears to have much the same problem as did the first version of the recent santorum-neologism article (which was successfully improved and published). The headline/lede needs to have a specific focus, forming the base of the inverted pyramid, and then there needs to be a middle of the pyramid. Otherwise the article is all the top of the pyramid —background— and it comes across rather encylopedic. Note the example (here) that continental drift is not news, while an earthquake may be (and, I'll add, a newly released report or study on continental drift may be newsworthy also). The human trafficking article had the Awareness Day, for example; and the neologism article had current events in the election cycle (whereas it had first been submitted as "this has been going on for nine years", which just isn't a news focus).
At this moment, I understand this story in less depth than I did the neologism one at its first review, so I'm not certain off hand what to suggest. But I'm submitting this review sooner rather than later, in the hope of maximizing how much [time] the authors have to work with in looking for a solution.
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.
The attribution for Abdel Nour in the Tourism section got switched during the editing. The lower one that identifies him should go above the one that looks like a second mention.Crtew (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Comments by reviewer:
That was a difficult review, but rewarding.
I only cut out two pieces of info I couldn't verify but they may well be in there with me simply missing them; one is the .4 from 16.4 billion and the other was a line from the World Bank.
I took the view that while S&P's downgrade was important enough for the lede, it did not need two sources as it isn't (quite) the focalevent, which could more accurately be described as a small flurry of activity (which is definitely sourced). For that reason I'm happy to pass with an addition to the lede to generalise it.
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.
Comments by reviewer:
That was a difficult review, but rewarding.
I only cut out two pieces of info I couldn't verify but they may well be in there with me simply missing them; one is the .4 from 16.4 billion and the other was a line from the World Bank.
I took the view that while S&P's downgrade was important enough for the lede, it did not need two sources as it isn't (quite) the focalevent, which could more accurately be described as a small flurry of activity (which is definitely sourced). For that reason I'm happy to pass with an addition to the lede to generalise it.
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.
