Talk:U.S. Senate releases version of Healthcare Bill

Review of revision 883690 [Failed]

Revision 883690 of this article has been reviewed by Computerjoe (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 08:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not ready: Somewhat stale... about something that happened on Wednesday? Fresh sources, please Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Sources aren't listed in reverse chronological order; two aren't formatted properly. A few commas are missing. 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 883690 of this article has been reviewed by Computerjoe (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 08:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not ready: Somewhat stale... about something that happened on Wednesday? Fresh sources, please Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Sources aren't listed in reverse chronological order; two aren't formatted properly. A few commas are missing. 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.

Review of revision 883932 [Failed]

Revision 883932 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: n/r Newsworthiness: Not ready: passed wednesday? Verifiability: Not ready: n/r NPOV: Not ready: n/r Style: Not ready: sources not formated properly Comments by reviewer: fix these problems then i'll pass 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 883932 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:04, 19 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: n/r Newsworthiness: Not ready: passed wednesday? Verifiability: Not ready: n/r NPOV: Not ready: n/r Style: Not ready: sources not formated properly Comments by reviewer: fix these problems then i'll pass 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.

Writer

I'm really trying to understand how everything changed so dramatically in less than 24 hrs? First, how does an article have no copyrighted material then, when I place the sources into the proper format turn into a fail on the copyright? Next, my articles would be newsworthy if it didn't take three days to review them. Third, every other area had been positively reviewed with the exception of sourcing, by the first reviewer so how is it that everything now has failed? And no explanation on top of that. Two items without authors, publishing date, etc. are primary sources. They are U.S. legal documents which have been linked within the article. --JaylanHaley (talk) 08:09, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I interpret the last of the two above reviews as "n/r" meaning not reviewed against the copyright issue. This might be grounds to discuss on the water cooler - if an initial review passes on a variety of points, it should not fail on those points for a second review unless there are substantial changes that make this likely/possible. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't check the one's that were previously passed - consider them passed. Just with the sources you list under References, use the sources template - change these and the article will be published by me --RockerballAustralia (talk) 09:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Will do for the future, again, feedback is much appreciated. --153.26.241.6 (talk) 21:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Review of revision 884195 [Passed]

Revision 884195 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: happy to pass it with out the references links 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 884195 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: happy to pass it with out the references links 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.