Talk:Employees killed in Foxconn manufacturing factory

Review of revision 1235140 [Failed]

Revision 1235140 of this article has been reviewed by Rayboy8 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Total fatalities and injuries contradict each with the sources. NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Not three paragraphs. As it stands, there is not enough text in this article to make it three paragraphs long. Comments by reviewer: Increase the amount of text in the article and make sure that what you say in the article does not contradict with what any of the sources say. In this context, you could say that "at least two people" were killed and that "at least fifteen" were injured. 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 1235140 of this article has been reviewed by Rayboy8 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:21, 23 May 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Total fatalities and injuries contradict each with the sources. NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Not three paragraphs. As it stands, there is not enough text in this article to make it three paragraphs long. Comments by reviewer: Increase the amount of text in the article and make sure that what you say in the article does not contradict with what any of the sources say. In this context, you could say that "at least two people" were killed and that "at least fifteen" were injured. 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.

Review of revision 1236634 [Passed]

Revision 1236634 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I noticed two major factual inaccuracies which had to be corrected pre-review: 1) This was not an Apple factory. They do not own it or operate it. They have contractual agreements with the woner/operator, who in turn use it in order to honour those agreements, quite possibly amongst others. 2)The claim in the lede was of 'further' investigations, which struck me as odd so early on. Sure enough, the sources indicate only preliminary investigations have been conducted. I'll also note that only the investigative information saves this article from staleness. 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 1236634 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I noticed two major factual inaccuracies which had to be corrected pre-review: 1) This was not an Apple factory. They do not own it or operate it. They have contractual agreements with the woner/operator, who in turn use it in order to honour those agreements, quite possibly amongst others. 2)The claim in the lede was of 'further' investigations, which struck me as odd so early on. Sure enough, the sources indicate only preliminary investigations have been conducted. I'll also note that only the investigative information saves this article from staleness. 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.