Talk:Obama makes unannounced visit to Iraq

This story did not undergo a peer review. Doesn't the policy say that even if a story is breaking news, it still has to be independently reviewed? tempodivalse 16:21, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I am going to Wikinews:Flagged_revisions/Requests_for_permissions to request the contributor who self-published and sighted have Editor removed. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

In the meantime, should this be un-published? tempodivalse 16:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Or reviewed - the damage will be done. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I unpublished it, pending a proper peer review. tempodivalse 16:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I also removed the story from the main lead on the front page. Should not appear now. tempodivalse 16:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Apology

I am very sorry. I can't believe I made the title mistake. There is no excuse for that. As for self-publishing, I thought breaking news could be self-published with no PR done. This policy must have changed since I last saw it. Again, I'm sorry for the difficulties. Calebrw (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a bit from the SG on the subject

If there is significant breaking news whose article is likely to be expanded, do go ahead and publish a short (but useful!) summary as breaking news. You can add an {{expand}}-tag. This will invite other editors to work on the article.

Perhaps this should be updated in accordance with flagged revs.

Thanks, Calebrw (talk) 17:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

No worries, no damage was done. The policy is indeed contradictory on this matter, I agree it should be updated now that we had flagged revs installed. tempodivalse 17:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

As a wiki we'll probably always be finding rather contradictory bits here and there. At least it didn't stand long... Can someone review it while I go for food? Only had a couple of croissants so far today. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Review

Revision 800811 of this article has been reviewed by bastique (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: looks good, good article 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 800811 of this article has been reviewed by bastique (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: looks good, good article 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.

Thanks Bastique. Calebrw (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)