Open main menu

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

Review of revision 883690 [Failed]Edit

Review of revision 883932 [Failed]Edit

WriterEdit

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]Edit

Return to "U.S. Senate releases version of Healthcare Bill" page.