Talk:Football: Manchester United announces extending Juan Mata's contract
Latest comment: 6 years ago by 223.237.194.181 in topic Review of revision 4379880 [Passed]
Review of revision 4379880 [Passed] edit
 |
Revision 4379880 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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 4379880 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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. |
- from one source “Arsenal forward Alexis Sanchez” (Mourinho’s comment) — however, back in 2016, we had discussed to search for player name in archives in case information is not available in sources. In this case: “Arsenal forward Alexis Sanchez“ from a Copa America article.
223.237.253.39 (talk) 08:00, 1 February 2018 (UTC)- I recall you've advocated for it, but I don't think it's fair to ask reviewers to go searching for information that should be provided by the article. If a reviewer chooses to do so, on their own initiative, that's above-and-beyond their reasonable responsibility. One of the objectives of a reporter should be to reduce the burden on the reviewer by making it as easy as possible to find everything, and surreptitious searches like that, even if a reviewer chooses to do them, increase not only the reviewer effort but, more importantly I think, the complexlity of the review task. --Pi zero (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- I understand that. But sometimes, (and this has happened lot of times), sources would remove the information. This time it was not; but generally, instead of searching outside, one should search inside (where content was checked) if you might have noticed, I try to add small, yet crucial information to the articles — like cannabis legalisation promise of Justin Trudeau. It is helpful, yes. I have written football articles after a long hiatus, otherwise, since you were the only reviewer, I would not have let you forget about those players. :-P
223.237.194.181 (talk) 12:43, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
- I understand that. But sometimes, (and this has happened lot of times), sources would remove the information. This time it was not; but generally, instead of searching outside, one should search inside (where content was checked) if you might have noticed, I try to add small, yet crucial information to the articles — like cannabis legalisation promise of Justin Trudeau. It is helpful, yes. I have written football articles after a long hiatus, otherwise, since you were the only reviewer, I would not have let you forget about those players. :-P
- I recall you've advocated for it, but I don't think it's fair to ask reviewers to go searching for information that should be provided by the article. If a reviewer chooses to do so, on their own initiative, that's above-and-beyond their reasonable responsibility. One of the objectives of a reporter should be to reduce the burden on the reviewer by making it as easy as possible to find everything, and surreptitious searches like that, even if a reviewer chooses to do them, increase not only the reviewer effort but, more importantly I think, the complexlity of the review task. --Pi zero (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2018 (UTC)