Talk:Woman fined in Spain under new 'Gag Law'

Notes

• There's a bit of a bottleneck in sources. Some refer to each other. However, it without a doubt real, and the facts are simple. Here is one story in Spanish media: Primera aplicación de la “Ley Mordaza” en Petrer y primera gran polémica. I did not use it as I don't understand Spanish and focused more on previous analysis of the law which was used (also why I didn't use handicapped or disabled as bait in the title). Cheers and happy editing. --SVTCobra 02:27, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
• Reviewer, pay attention to NPOV. The sources are filled with POV and I have a sort of bias in this type of story. Not a conflict of interest, but an objective bias. I tried to do my best as a citizen journalist and present both sided. Cheers. --SVTCobra 04:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

Analysis I noticed here, since I'm unable to do a review tonight. Perhaps fixable during review, but one way or another, should be addressed.

• "The woman ... was offended" (interpretation) We might be able to say she indicated she was offended; simplest would be be to leave that bit out and just report what she posted. Done
• "However, the controversy is about why the woman was fined." — says who? Unattributed, that's analysis. Done
• "seems to be at the heart of the case" &mash; analysis. Done

--Pi zero (talk) 04:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll try to tidy those before you wake tomorrow. ... #3 is totally me, because the stupid sources don't explicitly say so ... alright, I'll work on it ... Good night. --SVTCobra 04:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it is ready now. The Spanish source was added just to establish that it went from local to international. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm also leveraging it to get the original Spanish of one or two quotes (I like to use {{translated quote}} when possible, as I consider it added value over what msm provides; I don't recall when I've ever seen English msm bother to tell its readers what the original non-English was). --Pi zero (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3750845 [Passed]

Revision 3750845 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Fixed some copyvio passages. 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 3750845 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Fixed some copyvio passages. 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.