Talk:Portland, Oregon mayor admits to sexual relationship he previously denied
 |
Revision 755356 of this article has been reviewed by bastique (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Good reporting, 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 755356 of this article has been reviewed by bastique (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Good reporting, 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. |
Issues
editRegarding the removal of some, I think this meets the exception. The Oregonian, Just Out, the Portland Tribune, and even the rather irrelevant to politics paper Portland Business Journal is as well. Or would you prefer overkill and mentions of each? Aboutmovies (talk) 09:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- Also the Portland Police Union. But not Leonard as the article was changed to. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:17, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
- And note the wat it had been changed before was also inaccurate, no city officials have called for his resignation at this time. Aboutmovies (talk) 09:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Another accuracy problem
editSorry, but I just noticed this: Adams has stated that the relationship was never one of mentorship, that was part of the lie. So the second-to-last sentence is false. I will seek out a citation for that if necessary…not sure what the protocol is for correcting an existing story? -Peteforsyth (talk) 06:13, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- If he stated after this article's date, then it is not available for inclusion. Our articles strive to be what was known at the time, thus a snap-shot in time if you will. But a source would definitely be needed. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
- Okay, that makes sense, thanks for explaining. I don't remember when that detail came out, or know a source. But more than that, I'm not even sure which sentence I was originally objecting to -- on a fresh read, it all looks pretty accurate to me now. -Peteforsyth (talk) 16:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)