Talk:US Supreme Court declares same-sex marriage legal

Review of revision 3633247 [Not ready]

Revision 3633247 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Two of the sources are NYT, and paywalled. Wikinews does have a policy against pay-to-read sources; and I can't review it in any case as the paywall prevents me. Some general observations: "mocked" is an unnecessary assessment. One wonders whether, earlier in that sentence, "some lawyers" might be clearer than just "lawyers" (depending on what the sources support, of course). "only a few states"? Better to specify how many, and if the number isn't available in the sources then how would one know whether the number constitutes "only a few" out of 50? 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 3633247 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Two of the sources are NYT, and paywalled. Wikinews does have a policy against pay-to-read sources; and I can't review it in any case as the paywall prevents me. Some general observations: "mocked" is an unnecessary assessment. One wonders whether, earlier in that sentence, "some lawyers" might be clearer than just "lawyers" (depending on what the sources support, of course). "only a few states"? Better to specify how many, and if the number isn't available in the sources then how would one know whether the number constitutes "only a few" out of 50? 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.

Not exactly a question but...

What was that? Even I can't access New York Times's article without logging in! And, I don't have an account. This was not the case yesterday and I could read it. Just, if you are free someday, please let me know about some of the news website, which changes the option of readability. (you might have encountered with them in the past). I hope, I won't trouble much.
aGastya  ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 07:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I'm not sure exactly what criterion NYT uses for their paywall. Simple solution, just avoid NYT altogether as a source for Wikinews. There have been problems with some (but not all) Wall Street Journal articles, too. Doubtless there are others (The Australian, perhaps), but NYT and WSJ seem to be the two that come up as a problem most often.

At a guess, their strategy may be to allow access to their article for a little while, so people see it and start sharing links to it, then slap a paywall on it and hope some of the people who receive the links will decide to pay for a subscription. --Pi zero (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3635713 [Passed]

Revision 3635713 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Avoid NYT in future and a whole set of problems become far less likely. It might have been of interest to note that the ruling was based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. 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 3635713 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:46, 28 June 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Avoid NYT in future and a whole set of problems become far less likely. It might have been of interest to note that the ruling was based on the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. 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.