Talk:India and China to develop friendly relations

Text of the Agreement

There are two different versions of what the text actually stated.

• TOI [1] states, "The two sides agree to establish a working mechanism for consultation and coordination to deal with important border affairs related to maintaining peace and tranquility in the India-China border areas."
• The Hindu [2] states "...undertake other tasks that are mutually agreed upon by the two sides but will not discuss resolution of the Boundary Question or affect the Special Representatives Mechanism."

I have preferred the 'Hindu version' as it says "according to the text of the agreement released by the External Affairs Ministry" but the TOI doesn't give its source. Srinivas 16:19, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1373737 [Passed]

Revision 1373737 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Per "inverted pyramid" style, details of the news event should be just after the lede, with broader background following further down in the article. There was one point where I felt analysis taken from a source needed to be attributed (to "analysts"), as analysis oughtn't be presented as if it were fact. Granting those two items, the material was basically sound. Fairly heavy copyediting addressed apparent consequences of imperfect English fluency — structural over-similarities to source passages, and some problematic low-level word changes (intended synonyms and the like) introduces awkward word choices and/or grammatical problems. 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 1373737 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:22, 18 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Per "inverted pyramid" style, details of the news event should be just after the lede, with broader background following further down in the article. There was one point where I felt analysis taken from a source needed to be attributed (to "analysts"), as analysis oughtn't be presented as if it were fact. Granting those two items, the material was basically sound. Fairly heavy copyediting addressed apparent consequences of imperfect English fluency — structural over-similarities to source passages, and some problematic low-level word changes (intended synonyms and the like) introduces awkward word choices and/or grammatical problems. 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.