Talk:Washington flooded by rain and melting snow
 |
Revision 749728 of this article has been reviewed by PatrickFlaherty (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 749728 of this article has been reviewed by PatrickFlaherty (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:44, 8 January 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. 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. |
Over-referencing
editThere are now an inordinate amount of sources for this article — most of which were added after the review. Now, I don't know — since I don't have time to read them all — but is it possible that some of them are redundant? Please don't add sources just for the sake of adding sources. If the information in the article is sourced with reliable sources, it doesn't help (or even lend much additional credibility) to add repetitive sources. It actually makes things harder for those verifying information. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:18, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
- The sources each reference a phrase in the article. Many of the new sources should have been added before, as the information was unreferenced before. ComputerGuy890100 (talk) 17:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
Article appearing on news ticker on main page
editWhy is this article appearing on the ticker on the front page? It is almost two months old. ♪Tempo di Valse ♪ 00:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like it got edited yesterday, which may have triggered its appearance for being "recent". I'm pretty sure that's what happened. R.T. 20:06, 3 March 2009 (UTC)