Talk:Jordan declares intent not to renew land lease to Israel

NYT

@TheGracefulSlick: Because not all of our reviewers have subscriptions to The New York Times, we have to use it sparingly. If NYT is listed as one of your sources, then a reviewer will have to give up one of their five free articles per month to do the review (if they have any left this late in the game and are willing to spend it on WN up if they are). Would it be possible for you to remove NYT and any information found solely in that article? This WN article would then still meet the requisite two source minimum. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

True, use of NYT should be minimized, if not avoided altogether. NYT is pretty clear that they intend their material to be paywalled, so we should try to respect their wishes by not using it (noting the Wikinews policy prohibition against use of pay-to-read sources). --Pi zero (talk) 02:05, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I will look for a replacement source. Unfortunately, the NYT piece was arguably the best out of the bunch I read while writing this article. Perhaps new stories have been published since I last checked.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I replaced the source with a piece by the Jerusalem Post. It did not have the same material, so I rewrote a part of the article to avoid original research. Hope this helped.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Headline

It's been suggested elsewhere (off-wiki) that the headline ought to characterize this as not renewing a lease rather than as reclaiming something. --Pi zero (talk) 01:13, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4440838 [Passed]

Revision 4440838 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Although I agree the article wanted a background paragraph at the bottom providing perspective on recent relations between the countries, such a paragraph would need to avoid analysis; the submitted last paragraph would have needed more change than I could do as an independent reviewer. Cutting things out is, usually, the least involving type of edit a reviewer; even so, the edits I've made here were more extensive than I'd like to make regularly. I kept in mind that, with the timeline on this (including, alas, review delays), revise-and-resubmit did not seem a plausible option at this point. 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 4440838 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:09, 24 October 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Although I agree the article wanted a background paragraph at the bottom providing perspective on recent relations between the countries, such a paragraph would need to avoid analysis; the submitted last paragraph would have needed more change than I could do as an independent reviewer. Cutting things out is, usually, the least involving type of edit a reviewer; even so, the edits I've made here were more extensive than I'd like to make regularly. I kept in mind that, with the timeline on this (including, alas, review delays), revise-and-resubmit did not seem a plausible option at this point. 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.