Talk:French team of experts: Arafat not poisoned

Thoughts

I'm suspending review of this for a bit, to attend to a breaking article. Just a couple of notes, to myself or whoever else might tackle this.

• The sourcing on this confused me. This was not an official announcement, so the headline should be adjusted. The focus is the leak, as BBC notes.
• There have been further developments in the story; I see an Al Jazeera article about what the Swiss said about the French report, which notes that the Swiss have seen the French report although the French report hasn't been released. I haven't actually made any call about whether this would actually be rendered stale by further developments, but it certainly does reassure as far as single-source dangers go.

--Pi zero (talk) 22:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, on consideration I'm thinking the headline is okay for the current focus — if the focus is current, which unfortunately has gotten more doubtful due to the delay from covering Mandela's death. --Pi zero (talk) 15:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

There's another problem with the headline, in that it doesn't appear to be an actual direct quote; I expect to fix that. --Pi zero (talk) 16:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 2215787 [Passed]

Revision 2215787 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I was concerned over whether this article might have skewed its depiction of the controversy surrounding this leak. However, after carefully reading what the sources said about Tarawi's statements, I concluded that the reodering of paragraphs, which I'd undetertaken for other reasons (see below), left the depiction of controversy acceptable. I also considered whether later developments in this story render it stale, which could have been an unfortunate consequence of the delays in reviewing it, but I've decided (perhaps controversially) that the later developments are pretty much in the nature of further controversy, not to say squabbling, and the article's brief treatment of that aspect still catches that aspect of things reasonably. The article as submitted didn't seem altogether in-line with inverted pyramid style. Another reviewer once recommended to me the principle that, for a reviewer considering whether to make a change themselves or require the reporter to do it, if there is only one way to make the change, then there is no moral difference between requiring it and doing it oneself. So I reordered the paragraphs, moving the last paragraph to become the second paragraph, and moving the second-to-last paragraph to become the third. I also pulled a number of details I couldn't find in the sources, and made extensive (but superficial) copyedits for English usage/style. 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 2215787 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:41, 6 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I was concerned over whether this article might have skewed its depiction of the controversy surrounding this leak. However, after carefully reading what the sources said about Tarawi's statements, I concluded that the reodering of paragraphs, which I'd undetertaken for other reasons (see below), left the depiction of controversy acceptable. I also considered whether later developments in this story render it stale, which could have been an unfortunate consequence of the delays in reviewing it, but I've decided (perhaps controversially) that the later developments are pretty much in the nature of further controversy, not to say squabbling, and the article's brief treatment of that aspect still catches that aspect of things reasonably. The article as submitted didn't seem altogether in-line with inverted pyramid style. Another reviewer once recommended to me the principle that, for a reviewer considering whether to make a change themselves or require the reporter to do it, if there is only one way to make the change, then there is no moral difference between requiring it and doing it oneself. So I reordered the paragraphs, moving the last paragraph to become the second paragraph, and moving the second-to-last paragraph to become the third. I also pulled a number of details I couldn't find in the sources, and made extensive (but superficial) copyedits for English usage/style. 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.