Talk:Mitt Romney wins Iowa Caucus by eight votes over surging Rick Santorum

Review of revision 1359562 [Passed]

Revision 1359562 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Had earlier thought some verification problems were because I was having technical difficulty getting some source embedded videos to play; but later got them to work and still didn't find what I was looking for. 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 1359562 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Had earlier thought some verification problems were because I was having technical difficulty getting some source embedded videos to play; but later got them to work and still didn't find what I was looking for. 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.

Recount

This isn't a suitable subject for a correction, because we did not make any mistake in reporting.

I suggest an {{update}} reference to our later article that mentioned the fact that a recount indicated a different result. I'll try that, to see how it looks. --Pi zero (talk) 19:19, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I've proposed something; it's placed where one would put {{update}}, and does not add the page to Category:Corrected articles (which I maintain this does not belong in since we made no error), but does use {{correction}} for its attention-getting red color. --Pi zero (talk) 19:31, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

On further consideration, I think my addition is in itself not controversial — we might want to do more, but I don't see anyone objecting strenuously to at least that much — so (given its mild pseudo-content is a subset of such previously proposed) I've self-sighted it. --Pi zero (talk) 19:36, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Also: If folks think the note would work better at the top of the page, I would not object to that (since it calls itself a "Note" rather than a "Correction", and does not categorize the article). --Pi zero (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2012 (UTC)