Talk:U.S. presidential candidate Mark Everson challenges debate exclusion

DocumentCloud

DocumentCloud has a Wikipedia article, so we should mention the pub name, isn't it? Though reading the WP article makes me wonder what actually is DocumentCloud?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 06:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It's the storage host. I don't know if it would be appropriate to list it as the publisher.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Original notes

Correspondence with Richard Winger sent to Scoop.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:29, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hewlett-Packard

We must avoid abbreviations, but Hewlett-Packard versus HP. HP is commonly recognised. So we should still avoid abbreviations?
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 13:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

As a rule, explain abbreviations when you first use them. There may be exceptions, but the bar for those should be set very high. NATO and maybe NASA come to mind, and off hand I can't even think of a third. (The rules are different in headlines; it's interesting to do a string search for all the occurrences of "acronym" in the Wikinews:Style guide.) --Pi zero (talk) 14:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I thought of two other exceptions, US and UK. But they're exceptions of a different kind, in that you can sometimes get away with just sort of assuming the reader knows those or can pick them up from context because you also use the expanded name nearby; they're more like cases where nobody gets too upset if you're a little sloppy, whereas NATO is an acronym that's well-known while the full name is long, little-used, may not even be easily recognized, and isn't all that descriptive of the thing anyway. --Pi zero (talk) 14:45, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3716575 [Passed]

Revision 3716575 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Didn't find verification for the bit about being not normally included in opinion polls. 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 3716575 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Didn't find verification for the bit about being not normally included in opinion polls. 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.