Talk:South African floods kill at least 300 people
Note to reviewer
editI 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. |