Talk:India and Pakistan accuse each other of ceasefire violation

Review of revision 2763470 [Not ready]

Revision 2763470 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: We require at least two mutually independent sources for the focus. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Minimal article length is three paragraphs with total text equivalent to about three medium-sized paragraphs. Also, this is framed as if it were an encyclopedia article; see WN:Headline, WN:Lede, WN:Inverted pyramid. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 2763470 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:50, 23 July 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: We require at least two mutually independent sources for the focus. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Minimal article length is three paragraphs with total text equivalent to about three medium-sized paragraphs. Also, this is framed as if it were an encyclopedia article; see WN:Headline, WN:Lede, WN:Inverted pyramid. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

detail and not encyclopedic, please

add detail, based on actual sources, make sure it is ongoing since it seems to be focused on 20 July, which borders on non-news.--SVTCobra 00:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Headline

The current headline,

2014 India–Pakistan border skirmishes

is not a sentence. It's a noun phrase. As such, it would be appropriate for an encylcopedia article, but not for a news article. For a news article, start with a focus. Write a headline that's a sentence, in present tense and preferably active voice, telling the most important and unique thing about the focus. (And then the lede, and then the rest of the WN:inverted pyramid.) --Pi zero (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2766961 [Not ready]

Revision 2766961 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not ready: A matter of presentation; see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The first paragraph needs to briefly summarize the focus by succinctly answering basic questions about it. At the moment, the first paragraph is a collection of details, none of which is the focus. The closest thing to a description of the focus is the last sentence of the article, and that fails to answer many of the basic questions; in particular, the lede needs to show that the focus is newsworthy, which in this case requires answering when so that the focus can be seen to be specific and fresh. This is a matter of arranging available information into the form of a news article. How one can do it depends on just what information is available. If the specific date of one or both counter-accusations is available, one could write a lede pretty much limited to saying the two sides accused each other, mentioning a date for at least one of the accusations and thus establishing freshness. On the other hand, even without a specific date for either accusation, one could write a lede that says there've been a bunch of incidents, probably with a range of dates when the incidents have occurred, particularly mentioning that the most recent incident has been recent enough for freshness, and says that both sides have accused each other. That would work too, as long as the mutual accusations are in the lede along with the recent incident-date that establishes freshness. I did a bit of tweaking for distance from source; this was mostly not too awfully bad in that regard, and I wanted to get as much of that out of the way as possible, so we can hopefully stay ahead of this. 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 2766961 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not ready: A matter of presentation; see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The first paragraph needs to briefly summarize the focus by succinctly answering basic questions about it. At the moment, the first paragraph is a collection of details, none of which is the focus. The closest thing to a description of the focus is the last sentence of the article, and that fails to answer many of the basic questions; in particular, the lede needs to show that the focus is newsworthy, which in this case requires answering when so that the focus can be seen to be specific and fresh. This is a matter of arranging available information into the form of a news article. How one can do it depends on just what information is available. If the specific date of one or both counter-accusations is available, one could write a lede pretty much limited to saying the two sides accused each other, mentioning a date for at least one of the accusations and thus establishing freshness. On the other hand, even without a specific date for either accusation, one could write a lede that says there've been a bunch of incidents, probably with a range of dates when the incidents have occurred, particularly mentioning that the most recent incident has been recent enough for freshness, and says that both sides have accused each other. That would work too, as long as the mutual accusations are in the lede along with the recent incident-date that establishes freshness. I did a bit of tweaking for distance from source; this was mostly not too awfully bad in that regard, and I wanted to get as much of that out of the way as possible, so we can hopefully stay ahead of this. 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 2770440 [Passed]

Revision 2770440 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Added some attribution here and there (a key neutrality technique). Fixed up some wikilinks. One of the sources was a duplicate. Miscellaneous other small stuff; see history of edits during review. 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 2770440 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Added some attribution here and there (a key neutrality technique). Fixed up some wikilinks. One of the sources was a duplicate. Miscellaneous other small stuff; see history of edits during review. 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.