Talk:UK Supreme Court will not hear Julian Assange's appeal against extradition

Review of revision 4666404 [Not ready]
Excuse me, but what? The sole quote ("didn’t raise an arguable point of law") is in both sources adding to verifiability. I absolutely relied on both sources for this article. In fact, most of everything in this short article can be verified via either of them down to the four week time-frame for next moves by Assange's defense. This is the whole point of using two sources that confirm each other. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:36, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case, I misunderstood policy. Thank you for clarifying. --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:41, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Please submit for re-review. --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:58, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Imho, "Only cite sources used for information — do not add sources if you did not include any information from them," would apply if I had listed X number of additional sources solely to make the article more credible. I could have listed a half dozen or more sources which would only have served to overburden the reviewer. Some authors are tempted to do just that, not realizing it slows down reviews. Nevertheless, this is part of the short article trial and two sources are the minimum. If you are unconvinced by my argument, I could add something that is uniquely from The Guardian before resubmitting for review. --SVTCobra 03:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4666415 [Passed]

 * , thanks. I removed the sister link Extradition law in the United States because it is the formal process by which a fugitive found in the United States is surrendered to another country ... Assange's case is the reverse and UK law is applicable here and I could not find a corresponding article for Extradition law in the United Kingdom, for example. Cheers, --SVTCobra 03:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)