It's my understanding that there have been further developments in this story (regarding the curfew). Given that the focus is a bit weak in its identity anyway — a bit of a stuff-continues-to-happen sort of thing — it seems to me it would feel odd to publish this without the latest. The latest might be something that would afford a refocus, if there are a couple of mutually independent sources for it.
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.
It's my understanding that there have been further developments in this story (regarding the curfew). Given that the focus is a bit weak in its identity anyway — a bit of a stuff-continues-to-happen sort of thing — it seems to me it would feel odd to publish this without the latest. The latest might be something that would afford a refocus, if there are a couple of mutually independent sources for it.
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.
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Not sure if the title suffices anymore. But anything else that was more descriptive quickly turned into a whole paragraph each time I tried to think of something. So any ideas are appreciated. --SVTCobra13:55, 11 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
"Greater police presence was unable to prevent the attack on the Muslim-owned restaurant at 4:00 AM local time in the city in the North Western Province."
1. I'd perhaps want to see more details about the attack. It's the sort-of focal event but little detail is provided about it.
2. To make this attack connected to the rest of the story evidence needs to be provided to demonstrate that the attack was politically motivated (as opposed to, say, a random robbery). --Gryllida (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
As you may have noticed, the sources listed really don't have more detail. Searching now for other sources, everything I found were just versions of the sources I already had, being passed around on the newswires. So much so that I began to question whether it had happened at all. That is, until I found the article (see below) from today. It, unfortunately, does not provide more detail, but it does show the recovery efforts by the local community.
There's more work needed here than I feel I can do as a reviewer (both in the sense that it'd threaten my independent status and in the sense that I'm painfully aware of neglecting other articles). I'm going to list things I can see, though I'm unsure whether there is more that I'm not seeing atm (which I admit worries me some).
Several of these paragraphs need to have their timeframes clarified, likely within the first few words, thus clarifying article structure — since this article moves through time, it should likely be made crystal clear within the first few words of each paragraph just when that paragraph is about.
Paragraph 3 should probably mention 2009 within its first few words. The last sentence of the paragraph is hard to track in time; the verb "erupted" is far separated from its subject, and between is a passage that requires an awkward subjunctive construct — would see is a round-about way of saying something, whereas news writing should be direct. The passage should say that something happened, in the simple past tense, and should say when it happened which is not specified (at some time after March 4 those totals would be reached, but were any of those before March 4, and when after March 4 were those totals reached?).
Paragraph 4 fails to specify when in the entire first sentence (again, I'd recommend saying it within the first two or three words). When date is mentioned, note it's no longer right because those relative dates are more than a week ago; the whole article needs to be combed for that sort of thing, though I spot-fixed a few of them.
Paragraph 6 should be clearly anchored in time, likely by direct statement of date or perhaps by relative linking to the preceding paragraph (5).
Paragraph 8 (second to last) wants some tense smoothing; it drops out of past tense into "has been" and "had been". The latter case should probably name the day, in order to avoid phrasing that would only work smoothly if those events were essentially up to the present.
This should presumably be checked for latest developments; for example, there's a reference here to the president saying school would reopen on Monday.
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.
There's more work needed here than I feel I can do as a reviewer (both in the sense that it'd threaten my independent status and in the sense that I'm painfully aware of neglecting other articles). I'm going to list things I can see, though I'm unsure whether there is more that I'm not seeing atm (which I admit worries me some).
Several of these paragraphs need to have their timeframes clarified, likely within the first few words, thus clarifying article structure — since this article moves through time, it should likely be made crystal clear within the first few words of each paragraph just when that paragraph is about.
Paragraph 3 should probably mention 2009 within its first few words. The last sentence of the paragraph is hard to track in time; the verb "erupted" is far separated from its subject, and between is a passage that requires an awkward subjunctive construct — would see is a round-about way of saying something, whereas news writing should be direct. The passage should say that something happened, in the simple past tense, and should say when it happened which is not specified (at some time after March 4 those totals would be reached, but were any of those before March 4, and when after March 4 were those totals reached?).
Paragraph 4 fails to specify when in the entire first sentence (again, I'd recommend saying it within the first two or three words). When date is mentioned, note it's no longer right because those relative dates are more than a week ago; the whole article needs to be combed for that sort of thing, though I spot-fixed a few of them.
Paragraph 6 should be clearly anchored in time, likely by direct statement of date or perhaps by relative linking to the preceding paragraph (5).
Paragraph 8 (second to last) wants some tense smoothing; it drops out of past tense into "has been" and "had been". The latter case should probably name the day, in order to avoid phrasing that would only work smoothly if those events were essentially up to the present.
This should presumably be checked for latest developments; for example, there's a reference here to the president saying school would reopen on Monday.
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.
In my opinion, starting every paragraph with a day or date makes it feel much more like a list instead of prose. I was deliberately trying not to sound encyclopedic when recapping the last ten or so days events. I complied nevertheless in an effort to get this article published. --SVTCobra09:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
@Pi zero: As this is your third crack at this (at least), I know you are already quite familiar with a lot of the material. I wanted to point out to you (if you hadn't noticed), I tried to be very descriptive in my edit summaries including referencing paragraphs by number. This might prove helpful in the current review. Cheers, --SVTCobra21:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)Reply
Most of the later article is in evident chronological order, which is a perfectly reasonable way to arrange it, but as several of those paragraphs started as ledes and got moved down during refresh, the one for thursday had a couple of sentences in it that didn't fit a paragraph about Thursday. Finding homes for them elsewhere in the article, though, seemed to be an involving task in itself, thus beyond purview of an independent reviewer.
Concerns of the previous review were addressed; thank you. (The series of paragraphs starting with days may come across a bit monotonously, but it's clear what the organization is, which bothered me before; and if it bothered me, likely it would do the same for some readers).
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.
Most of the later article is in evident chronological order, which is a perfectly reasonable way to arrange it, but as several of those paragraphs started as ledes and got moved down during refresh, the one for thursday had a couple of sentences in it that didn't fit a paragraph about Thursday. Finding homes for them elsewhere in the article, though, seemed to be an involving task in itself, thus beyond purview of an independent reviewer.
Concerns of the previous review were addressed; thank you. (The series of paragraphs starting with days may come across a bit monotonously, but it's clear what the organization is, which bothered me before; and if it bothered me, likely it would do the same for some readers).
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.
