Talk:IPC inducts new members into its Hall of Fame

Journalist notes

These notes are Ross. Go bug him if something is not right. --LauraHale (talk) 18:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1604921 [Not ready]

Revision 1604921 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: After shading everything I could find in the notes provided, only about half the article is shaded. It's one thing if the notes don't explicitly contain something that they could, nonetheless, reliably remind the reporter of; but finicky details not in the notes are simply unsourced. Just for example, I didn't find inductees' countries or sports-competed-in. There were things I suspect are actually wrong, and one thing I'm certain beyond reasonable doubt is wrong (I was poking around for perspective, and there's clear evidence that they don't induct five people each time; also, there appears to be a fencepost error in the description of the retirement criterion, in that people who competed in Beijing may be eligible. It appears the provided notes neither verify nor account for the material in the article. The provided pdf has repeats of a number of pages, so perhaps some pages were inadvertently omitted; and perhaps some source of information other than the handwritten notes was used. Sources of information have to be documented — and, once documented, are of course assessed on trust-worthiness as well as used for source-checking. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1604921 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:07, 31 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: After shading everything I could find in the notes provided, only about half the article is shaded. It's one thing if the notes don't explicitly contain something that they could, nonetheless, reliably remind the reporter of; but finicky details not in the notes are simply unsourced. Just for example, I didn't find inductees' countries or sports-competed-in. There were things I suspect are actually wrong, and one thing I'm certain beyond reasonable doubt is wrong (I was poking around for perspective, and there's clear evidence that they don't induct five people each time; also, there appears to be a fencepost error in the description of the retirement criterion, in that people who competed in Beijing may be eligible. It appears the provided notes neither verify nor account for the material in the article. The provided pdf has repeats of a number of pages, so perhaps some pages were inadvertently omitted; and perhaps some source of information other than the handwritten notes was used. Sources of information have to be documented — and, once documented, are of course assessed on trust-worthiness as well as used for source-checking. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

1. Sir Philip said that people who competed in Beijing are NOT eligible.
2. Removed the bit about five people each time. My mistake.
3. The countries are correct!

Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1607917 [Passed]

Revision 1607917 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Great to see an article with more "substance" to it. I am well-aware that only having a small number of people on-the-ground makes more in-depth reporting challenging. However I would rather see more-detailed reports which are fewer in number than people spread so thinly that the reports only just meet Wikinews' minimal publication criteria. 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 1607917 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Great to see an article with more "substance" to it. I am well-aware that only having a small number of people on-the-ground makes more in-depth reporting challenging. However I would rather see more-detailed reports which are fewer in number than people spread so thinly that the reports only just meet Wikinews' minimal publication criteria. 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.