Talk:U.S. responds to Russian election hacking with expulsions, sanctions

On a skim-read, this looks promising. I hope to review it tomorrow. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Not speaking for now so much as in general but would the review process be easier if I indicated which fact came from which source? Darkfrog24 (talk) 05:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

In a word, yes. There was a gizmo that allowed WP-style inline refs that would be automatically hidden on publish, but it was hardly used and probably broke long ago.

Reviewers, of course, have to some extent volunteered for difficult work, so I suppose we're reluctant to ask people to make things easier to a certain extent. It would be deeply appreciated, however; normally, people would do that with hidden notes in the article body. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:45, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4275049 [Not ready]

Revision 4275049 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I hit a 404 error on one of the NYT sources, the one attributed to Mazzetti and Schmidt. It crossed my mind to try and soldier on, but I'm gambling that it'll be more effective to toss this back. The hope being, the original author can readily identify what's now unsourced and remove/resource, or possibly even track down a copy of the original (since they know what to look for). 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 4275049 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I hit a 404 error on one of the NYT sources, the one attributed to Mazzetti and Schmidt. It crossed my mind to try and soldier on, but I'm gambling that it'll be more effective to toss this back. The hope being, the original author can readily identify what's now unsourced and remove/resource, or possibly even track down a copy of the original (since they know what to look for). 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.

@Blood Red Sandman: I see the problem. I read this article in a paper newspaper and looked up the URLs later. Not wanting to use up my ten free NYT articles, I copied-link-location rather than clicking all the way in. It's an easy fix.

For other matters, I see that the style guide doesn't itself have an ENGVAR rule, but is there any rule against using American spelling? Also, I don't think the parag. giving background on the hack makes sense unless we mention at some point that the hackers were at least allegedly Russian agents. I don't think it much matters how we do so, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Good, an easy fix. The gamble pays off.

The only rule against specific Eng variants is we don't all know all of them. The k is a surprise.

Well, it's immediately after a paragraph which says the CIA identified them as Russian agents. Let's allow the reader to decide if they agree. You (or I) might not expect them to disagree; the Russian public might come to an altogether different conclusion. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Dinner will be soon, and when midnight comes, it will be that midnight. I've been digging into the sources in the expectation it'll be quicker to get the review done when I can return to it. I know it's not yet resubmitted, but might as well prepare. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:04, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'd forgotten to hit the button again.

Not offended about the K. I'm the same person who misspelled "Fisher," "Hillary" and "Barack" in the past week, after all. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

At least you've never Sweedened. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4275120 [Passed]

Revision 4275120 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: These are hard stories to get right, so well done again. 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 4275120 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:11, 31 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: These are hard stories to get right, so well done again. 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.