Talk:Wildfires spread across parts of Oklahoma

• Man, there was a great AP photo of a horse running near a fire........darn those annoying copyright laws!! --Bddpaux (talk) 23:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• I'm not married to that image......reviewer change if you find something better; the muse wasn't cooperating when I was looking through Commons searching for an appropriate photo! :) --Bddpaux (talk) 23:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• They just changed my freaking article!!!!! I hate it when they do that!!!!!!!!!! --Bddpaux (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• I sent it for review, but the d&(&*^$ Chicago Tribune changed the article.........I hate that! --Bddpaux (talk) 23:50, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1577471 [Passed]

Revision 1577471 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The first thing that caught my eye here was. 'thus far' no deaths had been reported. Statements like that, without specifying as-of-when, are hazardous; they could be out of date when the writer reads them in the sources, let alone when the article is reviewed. Poking around suggests it actually isn't true anymore; but in any case, what was verifiable from the sources was that there'd been none reported as of Sunday, which does sounds silly when said on Tuesday exactly because it begs the question of whether the statement was still true at publication. One passage I found much too close for comfort to the source, differing only by "scuffing up"; so I changed the ordering of elements. One sentence I couldn't find in the sources, which could just be me but could also be due to the source change. After the two removals, the whole was more marginal in length. There is a peculiar emphasis on Saturday night, but it isn't reflected in the headline or lede. That's not all to the good, though, as the article could stand to have a sharper focus. If you want to mark an article submitted for review as breaking, use {{breaking review}} rather than {{review}}; don't use {{breaking}} on an unpublished article. 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 1577471 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The first thing that caught my eye here was. 'thus far' no deaths had been reported. Statements like that, without specifying as-of-when, are hazardous; they could be out of date when the writer reads them in the sources, let alone when the article is reviewed. Poking around suggests it actually isn't true anymore; but in any case, what was verifiable from the sources was that there'd been none reported as of Sunday, which does sounds silly when said on Tuesday exactly because it begs the question of whether the statement was still true at publication. One passage I found much too close for comfort to the source, differing only by "scuffing up"; so I changed the ordering of elements. One sentence I couldn't find in the sources, which could just be me but could also be due to the source change. After the two removals, the whole was more marginal in length. There is a peculiar emphasis on Saturday night, but it isn't reflected in the headline or lede. That's not all to the good, though, as the article could stand to have a sharper focus. If you want to mark an article submitted for review as breaking, use {{breaking review}} rather than {{review}}; don't use {{breaking}} on an unpublished article. 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.