Talk:Savage on Santorum on Savage

Background notes

Background sect includes material previously already reviewed and published from prior articles, cited in the Related news sect. This pertains to the last 2 paragraphs. -- Cirt (talk) 23:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1441843 [Not ready]

Revision 1441843 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: NPOV. Wikinews doesn't publish blog posts, and here the video seems to be a blog post (yeah, yeah, vlog post) sneaking into what should be a neutral article. If this were an article about the pop-culture phenomenon, an example from pop culture would be fair game; but this appears to be an article about what two people said, Santorum and Savage. So it doesn't seem the use of that video here is illustrative. Style. The lede should be a paragraph that makes it very clear what the focal event/phenomenon of the article is, by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about that focal event. The current first paragraph, though, did not do this for me. Instead of succinctly answering basic questions, and making it clear to me what the focus is, it is over-length, goes into too much detail, and left me still unsure what the focus is. After I'd read the entire article, I decided the focus of the article is meant to be the stuff whose details were given in the first paragraph, but that wasn't clear to me from the first paragraph because, I think, the first paragraph is a detail paragraph. In this case, perhaps one step toward drafting a crisp lede is to avoid including in it any direct quote from either party. Then see what else you can do to tighten it up. (I'm also reminded of brianmc's advice that the lede is the sizzle that sells the steak.) 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 1441843 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: NPOV. Wikinews doesn't publish blog posts, and here the video seems to be a blog post (yeah, yeah, vlog post) sneaking into what should be a neutral article. If this were an article about the pop-culture phenomenon, an example from pop culture would be fair game; but this appears to be an article about what two people said, Santorum and Savage. So it doesn't seem the use of that video here is illustrative. Style. The lede should be a paragraph that makes it very clear what the focal event/phenomenon of the article is, by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about that focal event. The current first paragraph, though, did not do this for me. Instead of succinctly answering basic questions, and making it clear to me what the focus is, it is over-length, goes into too much detail, and left me still unsure what the focus is. After I'd read the entire article, I decided the focus of the article is meant to be the stuff whose details were given in the first paragraph, but that wasn't clear to me from the first paragraph because, I think, the first paragraph is a detail paragraph. In this case, perhaps one step toward drafting a crisp lede is to avoid including in it any direct quote from either party. Then see what else you can do to tighten it up. (I'm also reminded of brianmc's advice that the lede is the sizzle that sells the steak.) 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.

Thanks very much for the review and the helpful suggestions. I'll get on addressing these as best I can. :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Response to review by Pi zero

The santorum neologism has inspired satirical forms of parody. In this video, a vlogger teaches viewers how to say santorum in sign language.
Video: Kristin. (March 10, 2012).

I've taken several steps to address the review and helpful suggestions by Pi zero (talk · contribs):

1. Done. Removed the image (right) displayed initially. It was a video from a vlogger educating viewers on how to say santorum in sign language. See diff
2. Done. Copyedited the lede, removing quotations from the lede, instead modified to summary-style text. See diff.
3. Done. Replaced video file suggested for removal from review, with side-by-side of the two subjects discussed in the article. See diff.
4. Made some other minor copyedits to improve thrust of the first paragraph and overall flow.
5. Added a further response from another source. See diff.

Hopefully this is satisfactory to address concerns from the initial review. And thanks again for the helpful suggestions! :) -- Cirt (talk) 17:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1442999 [Passed]

Revision 1442999 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1442999 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:06, 21 March 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Thanks very much! :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:22, 22 March 2012 (UTC)