Talk:UN humanitarian chief Martin Griffiths urges guarantees of safe passage for aid amid Sudan conflict

Idea

Would you consider expanding this article to include the other nations who evacuated diplomats instead of solely focusing on the UK? Here is a source. Cheers, SVTCobra 03:08, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, only just seen this message. I will see what can be done :) CSJJ104 (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

@SVTCobra - I have attempted to incorporate details from your suggested source, both about the evacuations and the cause of the fighting. Thanks for the suggestion :) I deliberately didn't include too many specifics (numbers, etc) which are likely to change faster than we can keep up. Would you have a suggestion for the title of the article? "UK, others, evacuate Sudan" might be one suggestion? CSJJ104 (talk) 02:20, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Picture

@Heavy Water - While not a bad image on its own, does the current picture of Rishi Sunak perhaps seem a little jarring given the subject of this article? CSJJ104 (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Hmm, good point. It might give the impression we are accusing the UK government of inaction. I replaced it. Heavy Water (talk) 20:40, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4723828 [Not ready]

Revision 4723828 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Ugh. Unfortunately, this is already out-of-date because the UK on Wednesday evacuated over 500 civilians. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: @CSJJ104: I also edited for WN:PYRAMID and WN:SG#People's titles in general and used related news to clarify the Sudanese generals were ruling the country from 2021. 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 4723828 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Ugh. Unfortunately, this is already out-of-date because the UK on Wednesday evacuated over 500 civilians. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: @CSJJ104: I also edited for WN:PYRAMID and WN:SG#People's titles in general and used related news to clarify the Sudanese generals were ruling the country from 2021. 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.

Possibly better to leave this until the end of the current cease fire, or change the focus? It's likely the story will change repeatedly, and we keep ending up in this situation otherwise.

@Heavy Water: - Can I ask what the issue with headings was? I can see how Wikinews:PYRAMID means changing the order is an improvement but having headings doesn't seem so bad to me. --CSJJ104 (talk) 21:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

True. I don't have a strong objection to section headings but I've only seen them used in modern times on much longer articles, like National Museum of Scotland reopens after three-year redevelopment. But I'm open to a different view. Heavy Water (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I find headings can make it easier when writing an article, and can help break up what might otherwise be a large wall of text. I won't object to them being removed though. CSJJ104 (talk) 23:29, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4725782 [Passed]

Revision 4725782 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As you can see, that took me a long time. I would say problems mostly lay in distance from source — few identical phrases, but many that were too similar nonetheless, try to avoid imitating odd phrases or figures of speech the sources use — and removing redundancy. And, yes, I removed the headings, because I just don't think the refreshed version of this article is long enough to warrant them. I note NPOV was well-handled by the author. 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 4725782 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As you can see, that took me a long time. I would say problems mostly lay in distance from source — few identical phrases, but many that were too similar nonetheless, try to avoid imitating odd phrases or figures of speech the sources use — and removing redundancy. And, yes, I removed the headings, because I just don't think the refreshed version of this article is long enough to warrant them. I note NPOV was well-handled by the author. 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.