Talk:U.S. and China in trade dispute

Stylistic comment

I am not keen on quoting the reporting of another news source as is done with the Newsweek material. --SVTCobra 23:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I would certainly say that is generally inappropriate. You start having to get into what editorial bias the source publication may have and you could well be quoting a journalist who has no qualifications in the field he is commenting on. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree. The quote is not a biased quote when we are trying to tell "why" the complaint was filed. I could understand if they gave an interpretation of what the complaint involved but in all legal complaints you have to explain why you are filing the complaint. "Why" they filed the complaint is because of an increase in Chinese imports. Whether or not that is true was up to the commission to decide ... in this case, the commission sided with the USW. But that doesn't change the fact that this was the complaint filed by the USW.--JaylanHaley (talk) 22:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it be better if it said "As detailed in the trade-dispute brief ..."?

It's not even a matter of whether Newsweek has a bias ... I feel it is poor form to quote the journalism of another. Learn the facts and write them in your own words. --SVTCobra 23:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the Cobra and Brian, even if there were no bias, it just doesn't seem professional to quote other news agencies' text. Also, wouldn't this qualify as a copyvio, if one copies prose (not quotes) from another source? Tempodivalse [talk] 23:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is clearly attributed to the author and publication, and it is relatively short, so I don't think it falls under copyvio. --SVTCobra 23:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Review of revision 883529 [Passed]

Revision 883529 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Could've used some images, otherwise interesting article. article agrees with sources 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 883529 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Could've used some images, otherwise interesting article. article agrees with sources 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.