Talk:South African floods kill at least 300 people
Note to reviewer edit
I deliberately avoided any reference to World Weather Attribution (WWA) project, which CNN used heavily. WWA has failed to even garner a Wikipedia page. I don't know what was going on at CNN when they made WWA a feature of their article. I just want to keep the article about what is actually happening. --SVTCobra 05:25, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- Many scientific organisations & think tanks haven't their own Wikipedia pages, and regardless it absolutely doesn't confirm or deny someone's credibility. Articles include experts for their pertinence and insight, and I would trust CNN has credibility when choosing their subjects (Otto is a uni prof & from the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment. Contextualising information is extremely important for news articles, and I reject this approach. JJLiu112 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Review of revision 4674100 [Passed] edit
 |
Revision 4674100 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Read talk for why I think including experts, particularly acclaimed ones is a good idea. 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 4674100 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:37, 15 April 2022 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Read talk for why I think including experts, particularly acclaimed ones is a good idea. 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. |