Talk:Scottish police arrest two over Glasgow apartment death
Review of revision 1819707 [Not ready]
edit
Revision 1819707 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 10:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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 1819707 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 10:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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. |
Review reply
editI'm afraid I must object to your review for the following reasons:
- Times do not necessarily require colons.
- The use of the expression 'Strathclyde Police have arrested' makes more sense then saying 'Strathclyde Police arrested' because the specific time of the arrest was never actually reported in the sources. In any case, reporting the time of the suspects' expected court appearance is of significant importance to the story.
- As to whether or not this story involves 'just Scotland' is subjective. In any case, Scotland is in the United Kingdom, so the use of the term 'UK' should be fine here, although admittedly specifying Scotland might have been a better idea since the article references the procurator fiscal, which only exists in Scotland.
- One would have thought the reader would have been able to understand all the events, dates and times referred to in the article.
- What exactly you mean when you say "there appears to be little logic as to when things appear" I do not know. What exactly did you mean by that?
In any case, I would have thought minor issues like these could have been easily rectified without simply failing the review. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 13:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
Review of revision 1821141 [Passed]
edit
Revision 1821141 of this article has been reviewed by Tom Morris (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC).
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 1821141 of this article has been reviewed by Tom Morris (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC).
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. |
Editprotected
edit{{editprotected}}
Could you please add Category:Ryan Peteranna (Wikinewsie), it seems I neglected to do so myself. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 16:57, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done --Pi zero (talk) 17:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)