Talk:Washington Metro collision kills nine, injures many

Anyone in Washington Metro area ?

http://www.wmata.com/about_metro/news/PressReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=2619 gives Lisa Farbstein at 202-***-****. as a media contact, I'm assuming it's a D.C. Number? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Do NOT post people's phone numbers here - media contact or otherwise. Fine to highlight that a report lists a media contact, but not to stick the phone number so obviously on this page. People should read a report before getting in touch with the contact person. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

review

Revision 838351 of this article has been reviewed by PatrickFlaherty (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Press conference in a few minutes, possible increase in number of deaths 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 838351 of this article has been reviewed by PatrickFlaherty (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Press conference in a few minutes, possible increase in number of deaths 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.

Update

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/8114003.stm says now 9 killed - as of placing this message 62.56.114.176 (talk) 09:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC) http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/06/23/washington.metro.crash/index.html CNN also confirms Irunongames play 10:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

This should have been a new article development, not an update to this one. This article now has sources dated after publication - that's not supposed to happen. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Patrick forgot to bump this when he published. Look at the time stamp of the peer review. This should have been a June 23 article all along. --SVTCobra 15:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the fat mess knows all about this. 86.40.204.218 (talk) 17:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)