Talk:Haiti's banks reopen

Review of revision 944303 [Failed]

Revision 944303 of this article has been reviewed by Tristan Thomas (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 08:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Yes, it was newsworthy, but they were opened on Saturday, not yesterday. This is bordering on stale and would need some current content to stop that. 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 944303 of this article has been reviewed by Tristan Thomas (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 08:46, 26 January 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Yes, it was newsworthy, but they were opened on Saturday, not yesterday. This is bordering on stale and would need some current content to stop that. 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 945702 [Passed]

Revision 945702 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks as though the issues mentioned above have been addressed. 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 945702 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks as though the issues mentioned above have been addressed. 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.

Contest Points

I'm not officially part of the contest, but it looks like 1 point should be awarded for this article. Characters (not including spaces) stand at 1126. Word count is 213. Both these as of Revision 945705. Calebrw (talk) 16:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Currently we're counting including spaces, just deleting excess space. By current rules that revision would be 3 points, current revision would be 5. Bawolff ☺☻ 13:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That reminds me I don't seem to have gotten a point. --The New Mikemoral ♪♫ 02:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

wtf

I'm sorry, but I failed this because of the reasons mentioned above. One of them was that the article said banks were opened yesterday whereas the private ones were opened on Saturday according to the sources. If that hasn't been changed since I failed it which wasn't today, how can it suddenly be right? This means the article sounds like it was written/published on Sunday, which then makes it stale. The addition of a little bit about a few problems hasn't suddenly sorted out the article. Please correct me if I'm wrong.    Tris   16:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• You are not wrong. It was a bloody nerve resubmitting this when it was wrong; even more shameful missing that in the review. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
  • You are correct. I was wrong. The NYT was the one I misread. I will do my best to fix this article. Calebrw (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Please see: this diff. Calebrw (talk) 18:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
      • OK; that clarifies it at least. No harm done if it's fixed. Thanks Calebrw.    Tris   08:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is something to watch for; an article should be written with terms such as "today", "yesterday", and so on. However, it can easily need these details changed by the time you're reviewing it. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)