Talk:U.S. judge orders release of President Trump's tax records, appeals court issues delay

Collaboration

Anyone please feel free to jump in and add to this. I'm not sure I'll be able to finish writing in time otherwise. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 06:49, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I figure the appeals court granted a stay of execution for this article as well as for the enforcement of the District Court's ruling. I've already buried Pi zero with articles for review. But if someone else wants to finish it, I can review. --SVTCobra 03:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: Done, please review --DannyS712 (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

OK, very well. I will begin shortly. Thanks. --SVTCobra 18:22, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: There were some essential elements missing from the article. I think it can be fixed relatively easily, but I had to fail the review. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mikemoral: I'm not going to be able to address the review - care to take another pass at the article? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712:  Doing... —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 23:57, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mikemoral: Can you put a little of that in the lede? --SVTCobra 00:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@Mikemoral: Maybe I was unclear or the review was unclear. The lede still fails to explain why this is even a court case. It does not need names in the lede, just the gist of what's happening. --SVTCobra 00:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

OK ... I guess I spoke too soon. --SVTCobra 00:39, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712, SVTCobra: I think I have addressed the concerns, and provided some background to explain things more. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 00:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4520508 [Not ready]

Revision 4520508 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: WN:5Ws: see below Comments by reviewer: The article in its current state fails to answer a giant "Why?" and "What?" ... Why have NY prosecutors put a case against Trump before a grand jury? What are the charges? Why are the tax records relevant to that case? It is unreasonable to assume the reader is up-to-date on these things. And it is far too much for me to add as a reviewer. 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 4520508 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:47, 9 October 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: WN:5Ws: see below Comments by reviewer: The article in its current state fails to answer a giant "Why?" and "What?" ... Why have NY prosecutors put a case against Trump before a grand jury? What are the charges? Why are the tax records relevant to that case? It is unreasonable to assume the reader is up-to-date on these things. And it is far too much for me to add as a reviewer. 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 4520611 [Passed]

Revision 4520611 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I had some issues with pay-walled sources (my free LAT for the month is out, f.ex.). This led me to remove the last paragraph. It felt tangential, anyway. Putting the PDF as the image is certainly interesting and not bad. Maybe it could be supplemented by something more colorful. Due to the lack of 'closure' in this article, I sure hope we carry the follow-up when the Appeals Court issues its opinion late this month 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 4520611 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:18, 10 October 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I had some issues with pay-walled sources (my free LAT for the month is out, f.ex.). This led me to remove the last paragraph. It felt tangential, anyway. Putting the PDF as the image is certainly interesting and not bad. Maybe it could be supplemented by something more colorful. Due to the lack of 'closure' in this article, I sure hope we carry the follow-up when the Appeals Court issues its opinion late this month 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.