Talk:UK elections: Hung parliament, Cameron to negotiate with Liberal Democrats

Revision 1014154 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Fail Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1014154 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Fail Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Cleanup issues

• HYS question: "With whom should the Liberal Democrats work with?"
• "Overall, the general swing varied" -- doesn't mean anything, if "general swing" refers to a nationwide trend.
• "The AFP news agency says this is the first time....This is the first time Clegg" is redundant
• "With only one constituency not yet counted" -- does this include the one constituency where a candidate died, and where a new vote will be held in a few weeks?
• "Previously it was thought the Liberal Democrats would be more likely to work with Labour, as both are seen as "progressive" parties." "Labour due to both being considered previously it was thought the Liberal Democrats would be more likely to work with Labour, as both are considered more "progressive"." -- By whom? Also, redundant again.
• "minority or coalition government" requires wikilinking. --Killing Vector (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree with most of the above, except the redundant parts; I have removed them, and I'm not sure sure what HYS means, so I can't comment on that; in fact, I don't even see it in the article. Beyond that, I can't see anything wrong with it, so I'm going to repost it for review, and if you have no further objections, I will publish it. Cheers, C628 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the redundancies, I was trying to merge stuff from a duplicate article and must have missed a few things during the copy/pastes, and was trying to do it quickly - my bad. However, i don't see what's wrong with the haveyoursay question - what is your objection? Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 18:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't find anything wrong; I'm prepared to publish it immediately if either of you want me to. C628 (talk) 18:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please give this a speedy review if possible. I'd very much like this to go live ASAP. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:40, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1014217 [Passed]

Revision 1014217 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me; also see talk page. 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 1014217 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me; also see talk page. 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.