Talk:US: Russian fighter jet's flare damaged drone over Syria

Unfinished edit summary

Hit enter accidentally. That was supposed to end with "CNN says the Su-35 flew meters over the MQ-9, but doesn't make clear if that's the distance the flares were released from." Heavy Water (talk) 01:50, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4739105 [Passed]

Revision 4739105 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Of note: This headline was not in the active voice. Russia has not commented publicly, so I don't see the omission of any Russian rebuttal or acknowledgement of these claims as particularly detrimental to the article's neutrality, though perhaps it would be good if you added a sentence within the 24-hour deadline for substantial edits saying, explicitly, Russia had not commented as of Tuesday. The "There is ongoing debate..." sentence reeked of summary (summaries presenting difficulties with Wikinews-style NPOV, as they leave stuff out) and was rather vague. See edit history. 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 4739105 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:27, 26 July 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Of note: This headline was not in the active voice. Russia has not commented publicly, so I don't see the omission of any Russian rebuttal or acknowledgement of these claims as particularly detrimental to the article's neutrality, though perhaps it would be good if you added a sentence within the 24-hour deadline for substantial edits saying, explicitly, Russia had not commented as of Tuesday. The "There is ongoing debate..." sentence reeked of summary (summaries presenting difficulties with Wikinews-style NPOV, as they leave stuff out) and was rather vague. See edit history. 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.

Alexus vs Alex

Regarding this edit; I used the full name 'Alexus' because that is what is on his wikipedia BLP, as well as various government sites, his LinkedIn profile, and others.[1][2][3][4] I couldn't find other instances — beyond this story regarding the flare — of 'Alex' being used. The only deviation I found outside of this context was "Alexus G. “Grynch” Grynkewich." [5]

Is the standard that we should use the version of one's name that cited articles use? Just curious, not trying to litigate the change.

Thanks,

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it is standard, even if the version of the name is unusual, per WN:PILLARS' "Everything in the article must be verifiable from the sources, except really obvious things, like "Paris is in France." Also the current sources don't mention whether Russia commented, so they can't support Russia not commenting. Heavy Water (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Now I'm confused about the lack of Russian comment. Your review summary said "...perhaps it would be good if you added a sentence within the 24-hour deadline for substantial edits saying, explicitly, Russia had not commented as of Tuesday."

Are you now saying that the only way that should be included in the article is if another source mentions it within the 24h deadline? Should I revert that edit of mine?

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 16:30, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I am and was saying the current sources don't verify it, and that's why I linked in the review comments to this BBC article as a source verifying it. Perhaps I should have been clearer from the start another source, like that BBC one, would be needed. Heavy Water (talk) 16:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I didn't see the (now obvious) link to the BBC article. My apologies. I've added the source and cited it as usual with a hidden html comment. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:19, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

And sighted. No problem. Heavy Water (talk) 17:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)