Talk:Syria's National Museum re-opens after six years of civil war

Review of revision 4441885 [Not ready]

Revision 4441885 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: 1) The article body is required to be in the past tense. 2) Fresh information needs to go first. Currently the second paragraph is background which needs to be moved to the end after the quote from Mohamed. 3) Is it not clear who re-opened the museum, something I would expect to be detailed in the leading paragraph. Similar, secondary, question about who did the restoration. As we raised these issues with you previously -- the past tense and the inverted pyramid and the 5Ws -- please continue to correct these issues in your future submissions before adding the articles to the review queue. Please correct the above, and re-submit. Thank you. 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 4441885 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:50, 29 October 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: 1) The article body is required to be in the past tense. 2) Fresh information needs to go first. Currently the second paragraph is background which needs to be moved to the end after the quote from Mohamed. 3) Is it not clear who re-opened the museum, something I would expect to be detailed in the leading paragraph. Similar, secondary, question about who did the restoration. As we raised these issues with you previously -- the past tense and the inverted pyramid and the 5Ws -- please continue to correct these issues in your future submissions before adding the articles to the review queue. Please correct the above, and re-submit. Thank you. 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.

Verify

I could not confirm "from multiple countries" in the first paragraph. The source says "foreign". --Gryllida (chat) 01:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT: I didn't want to copy the source too closely and have people complain about "distance" again. It's out, though.

The sources do not say who specifically did the restoration or even which branch of the government supervised it. There's a quote from one restorer, but it's only said that he worked on "Palmyra," with nothing that he did any of the restorations for this museum in particular. If an additional source is needed for "authorities re-opened the museum," there's Radio Free Europe, but it's a fine enough line that I wouldn't automatically add another source to the workload. I changed some of the tenses as you asked but "is delaying" has to stay because "was delaying" means "isn't delaying any more; the delaying is over." In the context it's in, I'm confident this will not be misread. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Ya, didn't know if they were from one foreign country or several. Cutting that out works, thanks. --Gryllida (chat) 02:33, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Headline

Would "Syria's National Museum re-opens after six years of war" or "Syria's National Museum re-opens after six years of civil war" be better? Which of this information is worth adding? Gryllida (chat) 02:35, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I think "civil war" is a little better, but they're both good. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

What is 'Palmyra'? The article does not say.

--Gryllida (chat) 04:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC) Preferences

I much prefer it when you talk about the article itself rather than making it about me as a person. Darkfrog24 (talk) 09:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I much prefer it when you stick to the article on talk page. Unnecessary comments are better kept for talk pages, not article talks. So, again, any fix for the lack of explanation?
118.151.209.30 (talk) 09:47, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I prefer to have a

--Gryllida (chat) 10:14, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I notice that the anonymous editor reorganized the page before Gryllida made their comment, starting a new section.

My comment, "I much prefer it when you talk about the article itself," was a direct response to Gryllida's question "What is Palmyra? The article does not say" (talking about the article itself instead of me personally). In other words, Gryllida did things the way I happen to like, and I stated my preferences BECAUSE they did, like a compliment. Then the anon moved my comment in a way that changed its meaning. Don't do that.

Also, if you'd looked at the article, you'd have seen that the explanation was already added before you got here. You made the unnecessary comment. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:31, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Um, edit history does not suggest any anonymous editor removing any comment.
•–• 12:59, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh shoot, Gryllida moved my comment?[1]

Well, sorry about the comment-moving bit, Anon, but I'm standing by the "check the article before complaining to me."

But yes, I don't like it when people make things personal. I find it much more productive to talk about the article, as Gryllida did in this case. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Darkfrog24. My comment, too, was misplaced; it was meant to be a reply to the anonymous comment. --Gryllida (chat) 03:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Timing (to Darkfrog24)

1. The event occurred on October 28.
2. The latest it can be published is October 31 unless new developments occur.
3. This includes the review phase.
4. Time now: 04:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

--Gryllida (chat) 04:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4442802 [Passed]

Revision 4442802 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Difficulties encountered included some altered meanings. The lede was long and contained details that I shifted down (which, if the review were taking place when the article was much younger, it might have been good to have revised by the reporter). Note that, to avoid plagiary, the attribution structure should be taken in its arrangement with the quote as a potential problem; the entire paragraph quoting the minister of culture was verbatim from source, which should not have happened. See the history of edits during review. 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 4442802 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Difficulties encountered included some altered meanings. The lede was long and contained details that I shifted down (which, if the review were taking place when the article was much younger, it might have been good to have revised by the reporter). Note that, to avoid plagiary, the attribution structure should be taken in its arrangement with the quote as a potential problem; the entire paragraph quoting the minister of culture was verbatim from source, which should not have happened. See the history of edits during review. 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.