Talk:United States Senate passes financial overhaul bill

Review of revision 1060602 [Passed]

Revision 1060602 of this article has been reviewed by Nascar1996 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: So much little content from the sources, but it is long enough to pass. 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 1060602 of this article has been reviewed by Nascar1996 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: So much little content from the sources, but it is long enough to pass. 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.

"Victory"

I don't see how the article passed review with this line in it: This bill is the second major domestic policy victory for Obama, after his revamp of the health care system. This is an opinion not offered in either of the two sources so far as I can see. It violates NPOV, in my opinion. I have removed it from the article. Either way (talk) 02:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The article shouldn't have been published with that NPOV failure. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 02:50, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it was in the Washington Post source, "was a significant legislative victory for President Obama," however I do see your point that it is kind of non-neutral. I wouldn't really call it an opinion though, it's closer to a fact - it is the second major domestic policy bill which he campaigned to have pass, and the second he managed to have passed, I don't see what's an opinion about that. Perhaps the word "victory" is a bit biased, would there be any objections if I put the sentence back in reworded in a more neutral way? - EdoDodo ^talk 06:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)