Talk:One dead after bus and bicycle crash in Hampshire, England

Research

I think the article as it currently stands calls for some deeper research before putting it up for review.

1. Have you contacted Mr Holland or Mr Spencer to confirm the authenticity of their posts (this might be a good opportunity to interview one of them)?
2. Consider mentioning or contacting a cycling group that oppose cycle paths

Since the 1930s, the established cycling lobby in the UK and Ireland has taken a critical and measured view of the utility and value of segregating cyclists.[24] In 1947, in response to official suggestions that cyclists should use cycle-tracks, the CTC adopted a motion expressing determined opposition to cycle paths alongside public roads.[4] In 2007, official claims of safety for cycle tracks provoked a position paper from the umbrella body for UK cyclists' groups, stating "Cycle Campaign Network knows of no evidence that cycle facilities and in particular cycle lanes, generally lead to safer conditions for cycling".

– w:Segregated cycle facilities, Wikipedia

--InfantGorilla (talk) 08:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I only write articles from the sources I use. There is no original reporting in it. I don't intend to increase the size of this article any more than I have done so because I believe it is good enough for Wikinews as it is. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 09:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1062547 [Passed]

Revision 1062547 of this article has been reviewed by Benny the mascot (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: interesting... 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 1062547 of this article has been reviewed by Benny the mascot (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: interesting... 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.