Talk:Obama nominates James Clapper for Director of National Intelligence

Review of revision 1037759 [Failed]

Revision 1037759 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Article informs me that Obama is President. Last I looked, Scotland doesn't have a President. President of where? We are an international news source. Obama is not Galactic Overlord. Style: Not ready: No wikilinks. 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 1037759 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Article informs me that Obama is President. Last I looked, Scotland doesn't have a President. President of where? We are an international news source. Obama is not Galactic Overlord. Style: Not ready: No wikilinks. 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.

Fixed

The issues pointed out above are fixed. I think the comments made in the review were very helpful, but since I am a beginner some of the ironic remarks were unneeded. Everybody makes mistakes, no need to be so harsh about them. Thanks Nuburos (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that I'm not an American, just if you thought I was an egocentric American.Nuburos (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, that was how it came accross to me. Tension has been high in the community over the past few days and I took it out on you. The issues I raised have been fixed. I doubt I have time to do a full review on the remaining stuff, though. Hopefuly it will pass when somebody gets to it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, no problem. Guess everybody has some bad days. I'll admit I'm not on one of my best too :) Nuburos (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1038571 [Failed]

Revision 1038571 of this article has been reviewed by Mikemoral (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:15, 6 June 2010 (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 reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: That facts for the AP stuff are missing a source. 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 1038571 of this article has been reviewed by Mikemoral (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:15, 6 June 2010 (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 reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: That facts for the AP stuff are missing a source. 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.

Also fixed

God do I feel stupid. I based much of my expansion of the article on the BBC report... then I forget to add it as a source. My apologies for wasting the reviewer's time. Nuburos (talk) 20:23, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Oh there was no problem. I apologize that there have been 20 hours that it was tagged for review. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:26, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1038580 [Passed]

Revision 1038580 of this article has been reviewed by Mikemoral (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: With the BBC source everything seems fine 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 1038580 of this article has been reviewed by Mikemoral (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:27, 6 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: With the BBC source everything seems fine 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.