Talk:Prague explosion injures dozens

Feedback

Please place UOW student template on your user page, not the article. Links to Wikipedia go like this:

• {{w|South Korea}} → South Korea
• {{w|Dog|Dogs}} → Dogs

Inline links to external sources should go, that's what the sources section is for. WN:SG has those details and more: resolving them before submitting an article for review may help to avoid delays and publish sooner. Cheers, Gryllida 11:06, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1888455 [Passed]

Revision 1888455 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Breaking stories like that are, realistically, difficult to cover as synthesis, especially if one isn't in real-time communication with an available reviewer. Sources change out from under the story. This also highlights the importance of being cautious and precise in what what says, for which attributing claims is an important tool. I might have wished for a more distinctive headline (not with an injury count built in, but distinctive some other way), but, running with this anyway. Nothing much else is mentioned in the lede, after all. 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 1888455 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Breaking stories like that are, realistically, difficult to cover as synthesis, especially if one isn't in real-time communication with an available reviewer. Sources change out from under the story. This also highlights the importance of being cautious and precise in what what says, for which attributing claims is an important tool. I might have wished for a more distinctive headline (not with an injury count built in, but distinctive some other way), but, running with this anyway. Nothing much else is mentioned in the lede, after all. 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.