Talk:Three shot dead at University of Alabama in Huntsville

Review of revision 956961 [Failed]

Revision 956961 of this article has been reviewed by Benny the mascot (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: CNN needs to be sourced. NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Too short. You have enough information to make this longer. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 956961 of this article has been reviewed by Benny the mascot (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: CNN needs to be sourced. NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Too short. You have enough information to make this longer. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Benny: When I submitted this, there was no other information and the CNN report was mentioned in the Reuters story. Breaking news can be short. They grow longer after they are published! --SVTCobra 23:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that breaking news can be short, but you still had the opportunity to add more info. CNN isn't mentioned in the Reuters source, by the way. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I merged my article about the same topic with this one, thereby making it longer. Taking into account how recently said shooting occurred, the amount of content we now have I feel is more than sufficient for the time being. (I also deleted the unsubstantiated CNN claim) - PSD27 (talk) 23:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Reuters initially attributed it to CNN. They since changed it (their article is changing too), attributing it to the spokesperson. So, you should have changed it, not removed it. It is now part of our article, so no action is needed; I just wanted to point that out. --SVTCobra 00:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 956992 [Passed]

Revision 956992 of this article has been reviewed by Benny the mascot (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good to go! 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 956992 of this article has been reviewed by Benny the mascot (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good to go! 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.

---

We've had problems with article length before. Remember Scientology website hacked? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 00:25, 13 February 2010 (UTC)