As submitted, this had serious neutrality problems; I could have justified not-ready'ing it on those grounds, and mitigating the problems added considerably to the length and difficulty of the review process.
There was a bunch of analysis — analysis and opinion are non-neutral when presented as fact, though it's fine to report factually that somebody relevant to the story said it.
The paragraph about the archbishop made it sound as if the archbishop was in favor of the outcome. Part of this was analysis/summary (the difference between summary and analysis can be blurry, which is why direct quotes are better), but even after analysis was removed, it wasn't clear, unless the reader already knows, that the church is opposed to same-sex marriage. This is crucial information the reader should have when considering both (1) the fact that the country is majority-Catholic, and (2) the archbishop's remarks. We treat our readers as intelligent and capable of making up their own minds given unbiased information, but we don't assume they already have specific knowledge. Reviewers have to be extremely circumspect about adding even very small facts to an article; but in this case, a principle that seems relevant (which a veteran Wikinewsie pointed out to me once upon a time) is that if something needs to be done and there's only one way to do it, there's no moral difference between the reviewer doing it themself of requiring someone else to do it.
There were several small points where details appeared to have been exaggerated or embellished beyond the evidence. At least a couple of numbers were described as 'over' or 'more than' some figure when the source said they were 'almost' or 'around' or the like. The description of celebration in the courtyard had details that I didn't find supported by the sources.
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.
As submitted, this had serious neutrality problems; I could have justified not-ready'ing it on those grounds, and mitigating the problems added considerably to the length and difficulty of the review process.
There was a bunch of analysis — analysis and opinion are non-neutral when presented as fact, though it's fine to report factually that somebody relevant to the story said it.
The paragraph about the archbishop made it sound as if the archbishop was in favor of the outcome. Part of this was analysis/summary (the difference between summary and analysis can be blurry, which is why direct quotes are better), but even after analysis was removed, it wasn't clear, unless the reader already knows, that the church is opposed to same-sex marriage. This is crucial information the reader should have when considering both (1) the fact that the country is majority-Catholic, and (2) the archbishop's remarks. We treat our readers as intelligent and capable of making up their own minds given unbiased information, but we don't assume they already have specific knowledge. Reviewers have to be extremely circumspect about adding even very small facts to an article; but in this case, a principle that seems relevant (which a veteran Wikinewsie pointed out to me once upon a time) is that if something needs to be done and there's only one way to do it, there's no moral difference between the reviewer doing it themself of requiring someone else to do it.
There were several small points where details appeared to have been exaggerated or embellished beyond the evidence. At least a couple of numbers were described as 'over' or 'more than' some figure when the source said they were 'almost' or 'around' or the like. The description of celebration in the courtyard had details that I didn't find supported by the sources.
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.
