Things like death tolls need to be attributed: different people can be saying different things at the same time, our readers need to know whose reliability to take into account when considering the claims, and when such things were claimed also matters since death tolls and damage estimates change over time in the aftermath (typically going up). The Guardian reports a higher death toll but I don't see anything in their article that says where the higher number came from, so I'd say we're quite justified in sticking with the smaller figure that comes with attribution (even though the attribution isn't very specific: "[...], say officials"). The number stranded at ports doesn't come with an attribution, so we can clarify that it's merely what our sources alleged ("reportedly"); two of the sources went with the figure 15,000, one gave a larger figure, so it seems we're say saying "reportedly at least".
All sources agree on about how many were evacuated, so there seems no need to play up the "reportedly" on that.
Always give credit to news agencies for their exclusives (as we would expect to be given credit for ours); hence, that Richard Gordon was speaking to the BBC.
I wasn't comfortable with a widespeed in the headline when windspeeds were entirely left out of the article.
I gather this storm was called Ursula in the Philippines, which seems to have some sort of regional habit of using different names for their storms. Interestingly, I think only one of the sources mentioned this. Not sure what that says about the merits of us mentioning it.
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.
Things like death tolls need to be attributed: different people can be saying different things at the same time, our readers need to know whose reliability to take into account when considering the claims, and when such things were claimed also matters since death tolls and damage estimates change over time in the aftermath (typically going up). The Guardian reports a higher death toll but I don't see anything in their article that says where the higher number came from, so I'd say we're quite justified in sticking with the smaller figure that comes with attribution (even though the attribution isn't very specific: "[...], say officials"). The number stranded at ports doesn't come with an attribution, so we can clarify that it's merely what our sources alleged ("reportedly"); two of the sources went with the figure 15,000, one gave a larger figure, so it seems we're say saying "reportedly at least".
All sources agree on about how many were evacuated, so there seems no need to play up the "reportedly" on that.
Always give credit to news agencies for their exclusives (as we would expect to be given credit for ours); hence, that Richard Gordon was speaking to the BBC.
I wasn't comfortable with a widespeed in the headline when windspeeds were entirely left out of the article.
I gather this storm was called Ursula in the Philippines, which seems to have some sort of regional habit of using different names for their storms. Interestingly, I think only one of the sources mentioned this. Not sure what that says about the merits of us mentioning it.
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.
