Talk:US, South Korean special envoys explore reopening talks with North Korea at Seoul meeting
Rocket test edit
For the sake of neutrality, I suggest to include the North's recent supersonic missile test and the South's SLBM test. This is a kind of exchange they are in, don't paint a picture in which only one group fires rockets. - Xbspiro (talk) 08:22, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
- @Xbspiro: I'll add them right away. Henrymyman (talk) 11:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Review of revision 4647678 [Not ready] edit
 |
Revision 4647678 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Not a massive issue in this article, but given that the Sunday talks have now occured, I'd think this is stale given the new update and would need to be updated and likely refocused around these talks occuring. Please do let me know when this article has been updated! 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 4647678 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:50, 25 October 2021 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Not a massive issue in this article, but given that the Sunday talks have now occured, I'd think this is stale given the new update and would need to be updated and likely refocused around these talks occuring. Please do let me know when this article has been updated! 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. |
- @LivelyRatification: I have tried to refocus it, please give it a try. - Xbspiro (talk) 23:06, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Review of revision 4647918 [Passed] edit
 |
Revision 4647918 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Thanks very much for refocusing the story. This might be on the edge of stale, but given it's only 3 days old, I'm inclined to let it slide (WN:Stale gives a time of 2-3 days). Great work! 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 4647918 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:51, 27 October 2021 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Thanks very much for refocusing the story. This might be on the edge of stale, but given it's only 3 days old, I'm inclined to let it slide (WN:Stale gives a time of 2-3 days). Great work! 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. |
Renaming edit
@JJLiu112: - You may have noticed that articles usually get semi-protected when published. The rationale behind this move restriction, as far as I understand, is that moving affects DPL and RSS/Atom feeds. Moving before publishing is OK, after that not so much - if the article is under review, you may ping the reviewer to move it for you after the review is done, but before publishing.
In this case, DPL was not affected (since our newest article got renamed), but the feeds probably were. - Xbspiro (talk) 23:26, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
- I see, my apologies. --JJLiu112 (talk) 01:17, 28 October 2021 (UTC)