Talk:Four coalition soldiers die in Kandahar helicopter crash

Style

This article is timely, newsworthy and quite well written but it needs a little copy-editing, so it is unlikely to pass a review yet. As I don't have time to work on it myself today, I changed the tag.

1. The use of slang (Diggers) in the headline and the prose seems a bit awkward
2. The punctuation is a little untidy
3. We should include the "when" of who/what/where/when/(why,how) in a lead paragraph (Wikinews:Style_guide#The_first_paragraph)

--InfantGorilla (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The term "Digger(s)" is a sacred one to Australians and New Zealanders - to remove all reference of it could annoy some people - proceed at your own peril =D H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk 10:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

The Age piece doesn't use the word. However I didn't suggest removing it, only making its inclusion less clumsy. As you know, we aim to write for a worldwide audience. --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Facts

According to the BBC, one US soldier also died. Is this correct? --InfantGorilla (talk) 10:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

According to NATO and The AP associated Press- yes this is true. But the australian sources skim over this - how strange... H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk 10:18, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The Age, like some other sources, says "Another ISAF soldier - from another country - was also killed" so I think only the nationality is not totally clear.

Another fact to consider including: the ADF press release rules out enemy action. http://www.defence.gov.au/defencenews/stories/2010/Jun/0621.htm

--InfantGorilla (talk) 10:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

NEATO...i'LL ADD ALL THAT, btw how do you change the headline name? H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk 10:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1048526 [Passed]

Revision 1048526 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me. 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 1048526 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me. 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.