Talk:New South Wales state MP Glenn Brookes moves to crossbench over electoral allegations

Review of revision 4200979 [Not ready]

Revision 4200979 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 12:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: There's only one recent source; we want at least two mutually independent sources corroborating the focal event. NPOV: Not ready: Calling a campaign "slanderous" in our words (I'm hoping that's not somebody else's words copied, which would be plagiarism) violates our neutrality policy; see WN:PILLARS#neutral, WN:Attribute. Style: Not ready: No external links in the body of an article, per the Wikinews:Style guide; the body should only contain wikilinks (to either Wikinews or a sister project such as Wikipedia), using {{w}}. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4200979 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 12:26, 22 March 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: There's only one recent source; we want at least two mutually independent sources corroborating the focal event. NPOV: Not ready: Calling a campaign "slanderous" in our words (I'm hoping that's not somebody else's words copied, which would be plagiarism) violates our neutrality policy; see WN:PILLARS#neutral, WN:Attribute. Style: Not ready: No external links in the body of an article, per the Wikinews:Style guide; the body should only contain wikilinks (to either Wikinews or a sister project such as Wikipedia), using {{w}}. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4201157 [Not ready]

Revision 4201157 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The list of sources still has only one recent source, and there are still external links in the body of the article. See the previous review. 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 4201157 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:09, 23 March 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The list of sources still has only one recent source, and there are still external links in the body of the article. See the previous review. 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.

Status

Honestly, I'd hoped I might review this on Wednesday (UTC). I'm unsure of the status of the focus here, notably re corroboration and freshness, which would be points of interest to me in a review; and certainly having missed Wednesday can't help the freshness. (Alas, it's quite late where I am — on the opposite side of the world from NSW — and I'm not able to undertake a nontrivial review for at least the next nine hours or so.) --Pi zero (talk) 02:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I've taken a preliminary look at this; there are two outstanding issues I have my eye on, and I'm ready to start the source-check phase of review (the most intensive part).

• The phrase "move to the cross bench" won't mean anything to many international readers who don't live in a country with a parliament (which includes a large number of readers in the US); clarification is needed.
• Looking at the structure of the first sentence of the currently-third paragraph, it seems to say that Brookes made this denial while in the process of winning the district by 0.8 percent; there's something odd there that needs a rephrase for clarity. I suspect the intent was merely to weave in the fact that Brookes had won by a small margin.

At this moment, I need to take a break; hopefully, if someone else doesn't get to the article in the meanwhile, I can take it up again sometime in the next few hours (morning, here). --Pi zero (talk) 11:48, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4201546 [Passed]

Revision 4201546 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This is barely allowable within usual parameters for freshness. See the detailed history of edits during review. I had difficulty accessing the most recent Daily Telegraph source because it was paywalled as 'premium content'. Fortunately I was able to access it, as the paywall was somewhat ambivalent in its blockage; but please be careful about this, going forward, as it could have sabotaged the whole review. (Similarly, don't use the New York Times as a source on Wikinews as it's regionally paywalled; The Australian is also a problem, and often The Wall Street Journal.) 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 4201546 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This is barely allowable within usual parameters for freshness. See the detailed history of edits during review. I had difficulty accessing the most recent Daily Telegraph source because it was paywalled as 'premium content'. Fortunately I was able to access it, as the paywall was somewhat ambivalent in its blockage; but please be careful about this, going forward, as it could have sabotaged the whole review. (Similarly, don't use the New York Times as a source on Wikinews as it's regionally paywalled; The Australian is also a problem, and often The Wall Street Journal.) 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.