This is quite marginal in length. It ought to be longer; there's plenty of source material. It's usual for an obit to say when and where the person was born.
There was a sentence copied verbatim from source, and there were other, smaller-scale problems of that nature. You need to develop a synthesis-writing technique that does not involve copying from the sources at all. Cf. WN:PILLARS#own.
The mention of Cherie in the lede was an article-flow problem. Logically, it makes sense to mention Cherie in the lede because that's where the significance of the deceased is being explained, and it makes sense to mention Cherie in the third paragraph because that's where his relatives are being described; but there isn't much detail about Cherie provided here, it has to be in one place or the other, and if she's mentioned in the lede without explanation an international reader is going to be baffled as to who she is — which undermines the point of mentioning her in the lede, since without knowing who she is, the mention of her doesn't help explain why her father is significant. My eventual solution was to move the passage about who she is into the lede, and keep just a backward-reference to her in the later paragraph to maintain its structure and flow.
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.
This is quite marginal in length. It ought to be longer; there's plenty of source material. It's usual for an obit to say when and where the person was born.
There was a sentence copied verbatim from source, and there were other, smaller-scale problems of that nature. You need to develop a synthesis-writing technique that does not involve copying from the sources at all. Cf. WN:PILLARS#own.
The mention of Cherie in the lede was an article-flow problem. Logically, it makes sense to mention Cherie in the lede because that's where the significance of the deceased is being explained, and it makes sense to mention Cherie in the third paragraph because that's where his relatives are being described; but there isn't much detail about Cherie provided here, it has to be in one place or the other, and if she's mentioned in the lede without explanation an international reader is going to be baffled as to who she is — which undermines the point of mentioning her in the lede, since without knowing who she is, the mention of her doesn't help explain why her father is significant. My eventual solution was to move the passage about who she is into the lede, and keep just a backward-reference to her in the later paragraph to maintain its structure and flow.
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.
