Was unable verify several things in the sources. Some of that involved complicated issues of trust-worthiness or the like (see the edit history). Perhaps some of the straightforwardly not-found was due to sources changing out from under us.
Keep in mind, review calls for the reviewer to verify everything in the article from the cited sources. Don't hesitate to use more sources when useful, and do cite everything you've used — but also keep in mind that the reviewer has to read all the sources cited, so burden on the reviewer is multiplied by a long source list. Reporters using many sources are encouraged to provide hints for the reviewer, such as comments on the talk page ('such-and-such source was only used for so-and-so', and the like), or embedded html comments in the article <!-- like this --> noting where to find particular facts in the sources.
Ages were reported for only two of the six; not sure why, but that came across oddly. I was tempted to add the ages for the others, but reviewers need to be very circumspect about adding anything at all, not to disqualify themselves from independent review. (I really didn't see a way to reasonably handle Taub, after most of that paragraph was lost as not verified, without introducing where he was from.)
Might have mentioned which branch of US military each was from; possibly their military ranks.
Noticed a few passages overly close to source; it doesn't suffice on Wikinews to 'scuff up' a passage so it won't be picked up by toollabs:dupdet. Wikinews's standards re plagiarism are generally tighter than Wikipedia's (cf. WN:Plagiarism).
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.
Was unable verify several things in the sources. Some of that involved complicated issues of trust-worthiness or the like (see the edit history). Perhaps some of the straightforwardly not-found was due to sources changing out from under us.
Keep in mind, review calls for the reviewer to verify everything in the article from the cited sources. Don't hesitate to use more sources when useful, and do cite everything you've used — but also keep in mind that the reviewer has to read all the sources cited, so burden on the reviewer is multiplied by a long source list. Reporters using many sources are encouraged to provide hints for the reviewer, such as comments on the talk page ('such-and-such source was only used for so-and-so', and the like), or embedded html comments in the article <!-- like this --> noting where to find particular facts in the sources.
Ages were reported for only two of the six; not sure why, but that came across oddly. I was tempted to add the ages for the others, but reviewers need to be very circumspect about adding anything at all, not to disqualify themselves from independent review. (I really didn't see a way to reasonably handle Taub, after most of that paragraph was lost as not verified, without introducing where he was from.)
Might have mentioned which branch of US military each was from; possibly their military ranks.
Noticed a few passages overly close to source; it doesn't suffice on Wikinews to 'scuff up' a passage so it won't be picked up by toollabs:dupdet. Wikinews's standards re plagiarism are generally tighter than Wikipedia's (cf. WN:Plagiarism).
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.
