While this article did very well on the earliest stages of review — basic structural things like wikilinks, infobox, categories, image capation/credits, things that tend to get addressed early in the review process and can, indeed, take up a very great deal of a reviewer's time if they don't see it coming and simply not-ready the article (so: thank you!) — there were significant problems further into the review process, which took up a lot of time. It takes a lot longer to assess and cope with something that's not done right than to verify that it is done right, which is why veteran Wikinewsies' articles take vastly less effort to review (and yet, we all know that the only way for someone to become a veteran Wikinewsie i for us to review their work and offer feedback; so, here we are). The date of the focal event wasn't in the lede, but more systemically, it matters where all this information comes from, and all that was lacking; honestly, if I'd fully appreciated the size of the attribution problem earlier in the review, I might have not-ready'd the article asking for attributions and moved on to the next article on the queue (there are far more articles on the queue than we have any realistic chance of getting to, and some deserving articles are clearly going to be lost due to the competition). The article has many sources, which greatly increases the burden on a reviewer since we have to read them all and, then, sort out what comes from where; it seems the use of some of these was rather marginal, but I also note that there were interesting aspects to this story that could easily have been included in the Wikinews article, greatly improving it. The Sunni/Shia angle, for example.
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.
While this article did very well on the earliest stages of review — basic structural things like wikilinks, infobox, categories, image capation/credits, things that tend to get addressed early in the review process and can, indeed, take up a very great deal of a reviewer's time if they don't see it coming and simply not-ready the article (so: thank you!) — there were significant problems further into the review process, which took up a lot of time. It takes a lot longer to assess and cope with something that's not done right than to verify that it is done right, which is why veteran Wikinewsies' articles take vastly less effort to review (and yet, we all know that the only way for someone to become a veteran Wikinewsie i for us to review their work and offer feedback; so, here we are). The date of the focal event wasn't in the lede, but more systemically, it matters where all this information comes from, and all that was lacking; honestly, if I'd fully appreciated the size of the attribution problem earlier in the review, I might have not-ready'd the article asking for attributions and moved on to the next article on the queue (there are far more articles on the queue than we have any realistic chance of getting to, and some deserving articles are clearly going to be lost due to the competition). The article has many sources, which greatly increases the burden on a reviewer since we have to read them all and, then, sort out what comes from where; it seems the use of some of these was rather marginal, but I also note that there were interesting aspects to this story that could easily have been included in the Wikinews article, greatly improving it. The Sunni/Shia angle, for example.
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.
