Talk:Liberal Democrats hold onto Eastleigh in by-election as UKIP vote soars

Article dates

• When an article is published, the gadget that does the publication fixes the date to the date of publication. There is, therefore, no inherent technical need to manually update the date on the article. If there are relative dates in the article, such as "today" or "yesterday" (or "this morning" or "tomorrow" or whatever), the writer might choose to update the date and at the same time change the relative dates, in order to make sure they stay synchronized — with the purpose of aiding the reviewer to keep these things straight (since if the writer doesn't do it, the responsibility to do it would fall on the reviewer, which at best is extra work for reviewer and at worst is one more thing for the reviewer to possibly overlook).
• In this case, when I noticed the date had been manually updated, this caused me to look at the article and notice there were no dates in it (ooops).

--Pi zero (talk) 12:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't realise that. Thanks for letting me know. :D --Computron (talk) 15:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Results table

Personally, not a fan. This makes it look like Wikipedia and it isn't clear from the article why it is even necessary. I'd personally opt for canning it or integrating it better into the text. If it is really desired, then change the title to something like Liberal Democrats hold onto Eastleigh in by-election with 32% of vote as UKIP vote soars to 27%. --LauraHale (talk) 09:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, another similar article written on Wikinews previously, Conservatives win Crewe and Nantwich by-election had a results table and both the BBC and Sky News source also include a results table in their news articles. When I asked Pi zero what he thought about it, he said he'd remove it if he thought it a bad idea - so I won't remove it and I'll leave it to him until he wakes up later and I get another chance to ask. --Computron (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

That article is from 2008: it predates our review process. For modern practice, best look to articles from 2010 or later. --Pi zero (talk) 13:47, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Laura has a point: it's not integrated into the article; not just that it's in a separate section, but that it doesn't seem to have to do with the rest of the article content. It does have an encyclopedic aura about it. --Pi zero (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't mind, when anyone gets around to reviewing, they may review it at their discretion. --Computron (talk) 14:36, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1829043 [Passed]

Revision 1829043 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Whether to include the table was discussed both on this page and off-wiki. A news article should flow, and I didn't feel the table was a good fit into the overall shape of the article nor into the flow of things. (The "flow" is, perhaps, also a good description of why we avoid most tables: most tables don't integrate into the flow.) I'm sure there were one or two other minor items that had crossed my mind to mention, but they quite escape me now. :-) 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 1829043 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Whether to include the table was discussed both on this page and off-wiki. A news article should flow, and I didn't feel the table was a good fit into the overall shape of the article nor into the flow of things. (The "flow" is, perhaps, also a good description of why we avoid most tables: most tables don't integrate into the flow.) I'm sure there were one or two other minor items that had crossed my mind to mention, but they quite escape me now. :-) 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.