Talk:University of Utah study finds suicide may be linked to air pollution

Review of revision 3238646 [Passed]

Revision 3238646 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: When the source calls the results "published today", that's true if "published" means "available" rather than "first available". Allegedly the paper was first published on Tuesday. We've had trouble before with freshness in covering online-publication events because the secondary sources on which we rely don't come out until days later. It's possible some of these cases are caused by the journal claiming one date of publication but not actually making the thing available till a later date. In this case, a more practical solution is available: the paper is pay-to-read except for the abstract, and the abstract does not have all the information we're using from the secondary sources. So there's some grounds to claim the information didn't come to light until the earlier secondary source publication. Given the naturally slow rate of the news cycle on an academic result like this, and since we're still only talking about four days ago, I'm okay with that reasoning. 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 3238646 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: When the source calls the results "published today", that's true if "published" means "available" rather than "first available". Allegedly the paper was first published on Tuesday. We've had trouble before with freshness in covering online-publication events because the secondary sources on which we rely don't come out until days later. It's possible some of these cases are caused by the journal claiming one date of publication but not actually making the thing available till a later date. In this case, a more practical solution is available: the paper is pay-to-read except for the abstract, and the abstract does not have all the information we're using from the secondary sources. So there's some grounds to claim the information didn't come to light until the earlier secondary source publication. Given the naturally slow rate of the news cycle on an academic result like this, and since we're still only talking about four days ago, I'm okay with that reasoning. 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.