Not far into the source-check, I find the last sentence of the second paragraph much too similar to source.
Please review the entire articles for passages like this that are too close to source — not just this one passage.
General principles: Do not copy source passages and then 'scuff them up' by changing a few words here and there. Structure the article as a whole, paragraphs, sentences, and phrases differently than the sources, avoid imitating peculiar turns of phrase and word choices, and then after all that is done, the rule of thumb is there should be no more than three consecutive words identical source, with obvious exceptions such as titles.
It would be nice if we could come up with a headline that doesn't resemble source headlines, though I acknowledge in this specific case there's exceptionally little variation between different headlines.
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.
Not far into the source-check, I find the last sentence of the second paragraph much too similar to source.
Please review the entire articles for passages like this that are too close to source — not just this one passage.
General principles: Do not copy source passages and then 'scuff them up' by changing a few words here and there. Structure the article as a whole, paragraphs, sentences, and phrases differently than the sources, avoid imitating peculiar turns of phrase and word choices, and then after all that is done, the rule of thumb is there should be no more than three consecutive words identical source, with obvious exceptions such as titles.
It would be nice if we could come up with a headline that doesn't resemble source headlines, though I acknowledge in this specific case there's exceptionally little variation between different headlines.
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.
I've pretty much looked through the whole article this time. I'm still seeing passages too close to source. Third paragraph, especially its second sentence. Fourth paragraph, especially the non-quote part of the last sentence. I note that the whole first three paragraphs of this are following the AAP source right down the line, and the fourth paragraph similarly from AAP, while the fifth appears to be from The Guardian — were the other two sources used at all? We have policy specifically against listing unused sources, which creates more work for reviewers. I also note that the sentence about stifling terror, transformed to increase distance from source, has become difficult to interpret.
Further clarification: the overall structure of this is uncomfortably close to source. It's desirable that, when possible, any given sentence of the article should contain material from multiple sources. Even more so that a paragraph should contain material from multiple sources. And I did start, in my earlier comments, with structure of the article as a whole as the first thing that should be your own.
I'm unclear on whether Nuland's email explicitly says certain talking points should be avoided so as not to give Republicans ammunition for the election, or whether that's an interpretation being imposed by AAP; I don't see the other sources mentioning such a facet to Nuland's email, and even the quote from it by AAP doesn't support such an interpretation. It sounds more as if (and I'm only guessing here) she may have been expressing concern that Republicans would, in the process of using it to attack Obama in the lead-up to the election, make accusations that the administration was not making and thereby compromise the investigation. If that's what she was saying, it would be quite different in that it would be focusing on the investigation, with the election as merely an incidental
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.
I've pretty much looked through the whole article this time. I'm still seeing passages too close to source. Third paragraph, especially its second sentence. Fourth paragraph, especially the non-quote part of the last sentence. I note that the whole first three paragraphs of this are following the AAP source right down the line, and the fourth paragraph similarly from AAP, while the fifth appears to be from The Guardian — were the other two sources used at all? We have policy specifically against listing unused sources, which creates more work for reviewers. I also note that the sentence about stifling terror, transformed to increase distance from source, has become difficult to interpret.
Further clarification: the overall structure of this is uncomfortably close to source. It's desirable that, when possible, any given sentence of the article should contain material from multiple sources. Even more so that a paragraph should contain material from multiple sources. And I did start, in my earlier comments, with structure of the article as a whole as the first thing that should be your own.
I'm unclear on whether Nuland's email explicitly says certain talking points should be avoided so as not to give Republicans ammunition for the election, or whether that's an interpretation being imposed by AAP; I don't see the other sources mentioning such a facet to Nuland's email, and even the quote from it by AAP doesn't support such an interpretation. It sounds more as if (and I'm only guessing here) she may have been expressing concern that Republicans would, in the process of using it to attack Obama in the lead-up to the election, make accusations that the administration was not making and thereby compromise the investigation. If that's what she was saying, it would be quite different in that it would be focusing on the investigation, with the election as merely an incidental
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.
Comments by reviewer:
It's right at the limit and I had to remove some POV material but I think it's good to go.
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.
Comments by reviewer:
It's right at the limit and I had to remove some POV material but I think it's good to go.
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.
