Talk:US government sues SpaceX, claims hiring discrimination against asylees

Review of revision 4742855 [Passed]

Revision 4742855 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: HowFunky!: Good work for a second (and first published) article. DOJ alleged discrimination against asylees, not just "immigrants", the latter being a more general term. This barely meets WN:LENGTH's minimum requirement of 100 words and one paragraph, as it has 129 words, and that's after I added the sentence on the DOJ's stated desired outcome. It's not great for a reviewer to be adding stuff, even stuff as core to the story as that. In this case, I recognized the reporter's brief tenure on this project and that other reviewers have done more in other instances (and also the principle "there's no moral difference between a reporter and a reviewer doing something if it's the only solution", which I see as applying here). But I'd like to avoid that situation in the future. See the edit history for more. 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 4742855 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:59, 29 August 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: HowFunky!: Good work for a second (and first published) article. DOJ alleged discrimination against asylees, not just "immigrants", the latter being a more general term. This barely meets WN:LENGTH's minimum requirement of 100 words and one paragraph, as it has 129 words, and that's after I added the sentence on the DOJ's stated desired outcome. It's not great for a reviewer to be adding stuff, even stuff as core to the story as that. In this case, I recognized the reporter's brief tenure on this project and that other reviewers have done more in other instances (and also the principle "there's no moral difference between a reporter and a reviewer doing something if it's the only solution", which I see as applying here). But I'd like to avoid that situation in the future. See the edit history for more. 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.

Oh, also WN:CS prohibits the inclusion of unnecessary sources, with the obvious exception of the mutually independent two needed as a baseline. I became aware CNN was unnecessary, but forgot to cut it before publication (argh). Heavy Water (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)