Talk:US Supreme Court overturns fraud convictions in Kelly v. United States
NotesEdit
- The summary of the bridgegate scandal added in Special:Diff/4563437 comes from the opinion, which is in the public domain, and thus is not a copyright violation
LedeEdit
@DannyS712: Just atm, there's nothing in the lede that clues in an international audience to what this case is about. It says "the Bridgegate scandal", which means nothing to an international audience, and "fraud", which could be almost anything. A very few words are needed, not a detailed explanation —it's the lede— but those few words have to get across to an international audience what all the fuss is about. --Pi zero (talk) 22:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
Review of revision 4563551 [Passed]Edit
Revision 4563551 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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 4563551 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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. |
Image?Edit
Just wondering if anyone is willing to sight the edit. @Acagastya, Green Giant, Gryllida:. --Pi zero (talk) 13:19, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
- Done --Green Giant (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2020 (UTC)