Talk:Last Ottoman dies, aged 91

Review of revision 1459356 [Passed]

Revision 1459356 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I would recommend adding something at the end about her surviving descendants; that's usual for obits, and in this case it's especially significant as perspective on her status as the "last". The thing about the headline that really grabbed me was, what does "last Ottoman" mean? That's good, for a headline to draw the reader in. It was the foremost question in my mind when reading the lede. But the lede didn't answer that question; in fact, the whole article didn't. There were a couple of verifiably inaccurate details. There were historical details that were neither in the sources nor "obvious" — as an example that comes to mind, it's not Paris-is-in-France or Pope-is-Catholic obvious that the princess and prince were married in Cairo. (Not even Ataturk-founded-modern-Turkey obvious. :-) Sources don't have to be news articles; they do have to be on-line, and trust-worthy (which rules out Wikipedia, but not some of the sources that Wikipedia lists). 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 1459356 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I would recommend adding something at the end about her surviving descendants; that's usual for obits, and in this case it's especially significant as perspective on her status as the "last". The thing about the headline that really grabbed me was, what does "last Ottoman" mean? That's good, for a headline to draw the reader in. It was the foremost question in my mind when reading the lede. But the lede didn't answer that question; in fact, the whole article didn't. There were a couple of verifiably inaccurate details. There were historical details that were neither in the sources nor "obvious" — as an example that comes to mind, it's not Paris-is-in-France or Pope-is-Catholic obvious that the princess and prince were married in Cairo. (Not even Ataturk-founded-modern-Turkey obvious. :-) Sources don't have to be news articles; they do have to be on-line, and trust-worthy (which rules out Wikipedia, but not some of the sources that Wikipedia lists). 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.