Talk:US President Obama celebrates his first Martin Luther King Jr. Day while in office

Review of revision 940014 [Failed]

Revision 940014 of this article has been reviewed by Cocoaguy (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: see below Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Although this is a good article, the only thing that makes it notable is Pres. Obama. Cyclical things like this are not typically covered by Wikinews. 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 940014 of this article has been reviewed by Cocoaguy (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: see below Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Although this is a good article, the only thing that makes it notable is Pres. Obama. Cyclical things like this are not typically covered by Wikinews. 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.

I disagree, and I would urge you to reconsider. This is Obama's first MLK Day as president, and I think that it deserves a mention. It may not next year or in the years following, but since this is the nation's first MLK Day with a black president at the helm, it's a seemingly valid story at least for this one year. PSD27 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, you raise a good point. I guess the article wasn't all "fluff" as i first thought. I was a little to quick to give it the proverbial bat. Cocoaguy^talk_contribs‽ 01:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, the article was perfectly fine when I failed it's review. But now I've added too much to the article to be a uninvolved party. But otherwise it's ready for publishing. Cocoaguy^talk_contribs‽ 02:08, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. I appreciate it. PSD27 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 940184 [Passed]

Revision 940184 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 08:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: don't know about style but other sources have similar 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 940184 of this article has been reviewed by RockerballAustralia (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 08:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: don't know about style but other sources have similar 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.