Talk:Explosion sinks Indian Navy submarine
Review of revision 1970877 [Not ready]
edit  |
Revision 1970877 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I fixed the lack of image credit and added some additional categories. I also removed an external link. This thing really needs a grammar check. There is a sentence that does not end in a period. The lead reads as confusing. "some of which have since been confirmed dead." is a clause attached to "in a Mumbai port today". Given this, it does not make sense. It needs to be written to make sense. It is hard to follow the Russian bit. The concept is introduced very late in the article, but seems potentially important. This should likely appear in the lead if there is a connection between the Russian built aspect and the potential explosion. The title appears a bit non-specific in some ways. Also, the submarine was not just rocked around in heavy waves but appears to have killed 18 people. Maybe not 18 people. Could be more. Could be less. How many people were confirmed dead? The first paragraph is unclear. The last two paragraphs are less important and fit near the end of inverted pyramid scheme writing... but they seem disjointed. They are single sentences. Why are they there? And who believes the Indian Navy has 14 of these type of vessels? 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 1970877 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I fixed the lack of image credit and added some additional categories. I also removed an external link. This thing really needs a grammar check. There is a sentence that does not end in a period. The lead reads as confusing. "some of which have since been confirmed dead." is a clause attached to "in a Mumbai port today". Given this, it does not make sense. It needs to be written to make sense. It is hard to follow the Russian bit. The concept is introduced very late in the article, but seems potentially important. This should likely appear in the lead if there is a connection between the Russian built aspect and the potential explosion. The title appears a bit non-specific in some ways. Also, the submarine was not just rocked around in heavy waves but appears to have killed 18 people. Maybe not 18 people. Could be more. Could be less. How many people were confirmed dead? The first paragraph is unclear. The last two paragraphs are less important and fit near the end of inverted pyramid scheme writing... but they seem disjointed. They are single sentences. Why are they there? And who believes the Indian Navy has 14 of these type of vessels? 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 1971393 [Passed]
edit  |
Revision 1971393 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: For such a short piece there were a lot of mistakes and missing info. It was so severe I asked Pi zero on IRC to double-check if I had not become too involved to review. I suspect maybe sources were missing; I see the Indian Navy's official website was mentioned and cannot tell, for example, if you looked it up but did not cite the website as a source. Or, perhaps Wikipedia was used (not appropriate as a source as they do not use our strict factchecking on their wiki). Also, since this was first written the situation had moved on. That's an unfortunate reality on articles that don't get passed on their first review, particularly with an ongoing emergency such as this. However, I don't see much evidence to suggest the copy was edited to reflect that. The extinguishing of the fire is not expressly mentioned in the sources cited, but it is so strongly implied I've left it in. I'm not convinced the final source adds anything as so far as I could see the INS Vikrant info could be found in the other articles. I left it in to err on the side of caution, not least because I'm relatively freshly back from a prolonged absence, but please bear in mind it is policy to "Only cite sources used for information — do not add sources if you did not include any information from them." This is because it slows down reviewing, and we need all the reviewer-time we can get on this project. 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 1971393 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:47, 15 August 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: For such a short piece there were a lot of mistakes and missing info. It was so severe I asked Pi zero on IRC to double-check if I had not become too involved to review. I suspect maybe sources were missing; I see the Indian Navy's official website was mentioned and cannot tell, for example, if you looked it up but did not cite the website as a source. Or, perhaps Wikipedia was used (not appropriate as a source as they do not use our strict factchecking on their wiki). Also, since this was first written the situation had moved on. That's an unfortunate reality on articles that don't get passed on their first review, particularly with an ongoing emergency such as this. However, I don't see much evidence to suggest the copy was edited to reflect that. The extinguishing of the fire is not expressly mentioned in the sources cited, but it is so strongly implied I've left it in. I'm not convinced the final source adds anything as so far as I could see the INS Vikrant info could be found in the other articles. I left it in to err on the side of caution, not least because I'm relatively freshly back from a prolonged absence, but please bear in mind it is policy to "Only cite sources used for information — do not add sources if you did not include any information from them." This is because it slows down reviewing, and we need all the reviewer-time we can get on this project. 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. |