Talk:Leaked cables cause Australian concern

Review of revision 1140735 [Failed]

Revision 1140735 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: Once again, the unsourced allegation that someone other than Sweden has issued any sort of Warrant against Assange. Unsourced hearsay. NPOV: Not ready: Per verifiability. Style: Not ready: rambling lede. Malformatted dates in sources, lack of appropriate Wiilinks, cats. Comments by reviewer: See new section on Water Cooler. 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 1140735 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: Once again, the unsourced allegation that someone other than Sweden has issued any sort of Warrant against Assange. Unsourced hearsay. NPOV: Not ready: Per verifiability. Style: Not ready: rambling lede. Malformatted dates in sources, lack of appropriate Wiilinks, cats. Comments by reviewer: See new section on Water Cooler. 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 1140754 [Failed]

Revision 1140754 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not ready: Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: Re-failed for not reading and resolving all mentioned points. Sourcing of any US or Australian reference to Swedish sex offence charges. Implying, unsourced, that US or Australia, have set in motion any legal action against Assange. Please refer to my newly added section on the Water Cooler. This ws speedily resubbed for review with a slapdash lick of paint instead of a careful and considered review of verifiable facts. Unacceptable fac-checking, shoddy work by submitter. 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 1140754 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not ready: Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: Re-failed for not reading and resolving all mentioned points. Sourcing of any US or Australian reference to Swedish sex offence charges. Implying, unsourced, that US or Australia, have set in motion any legal action against Assange. Please refer to my newly added section on the Water Cooler. This ws speedily resubbed for review with a slapdash lick of paint instead of a careful and considered review of verifiable facts. Unacceptable fac-checking, shoddy work by submitter. 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 1142677 [Failed]

Revision 1142677 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: At risk according to who? Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Title a lede seem too POV. Attribute both and I'm sure it'll pass 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 1142677 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:23, 10 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: At risk according to who? Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Title a lede seem too POV. Attribute both and I'm sure it'll pass 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.

I have created a new headline. Could you also please clarify what parts of the article need to be changed for POV? Thanks ~YTT (talk)

Review of revision 1142771 [Passed]

Revision 1142771 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I think the original contributor picked up on the POV thing before I could respond 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 1142771 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:17, 10 December 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I think the original contributor picked up on the POV thing before I could respond 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.

The article was not edited when this passing review was registered on the talk page. It seems clear that a valid review did take place, so I've manually fixed the article page and sighted it.

(Sorry I got a bit snippy in my first edit summary on the article; we get in the habit of forcefully nipping in the bud any non-reviewer's attempt to self-publish.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

It's possible I've screwed up, here. Some edits made after the review may have been included in the manual publication. --Pi zero (talk) 17:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)