The lede does not answer one of the most important of the basic questions — who. This is closely related to its use of passive voice, which is poor news style — if it were in active voice, one would have to provide a subject, who would be the one doing the warning/threatening.
The use of the word "threaten" here is non-neutral. Yes, three out of four sources use it (and the fourth is the government-run paper). But it conveys a sense of abuse of power, and we shouldn't be implying that — nor do we have to. If we do a good job of presenting the facts of this story, intelligent readers are quite capable of drawing their own conclusions.
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.
The lede does not answer one of the most important of the basic questions — who. This is closely related to its use of passive voice, which is poor news style — if it were in active voice, one would have to provide a subject, who would be the one doing the warning/threatening.
The use of the word "threaten" here is non-neutral. Yes, three out of four sources use it (and the fourth is the government-run paper). But it conveys a sense of abuse of power, and we shouldn't be implying that — nor do we have to. If we do a good job of presenting the facts of this story, intelligent readers are quite capable of drawing their own conclusions.
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.
At least three times, quotes from news sources have been put between quotation marks, and attributed to the people whose comments were being described by those news sources. That's misattribution — the commenters did not say exactly that, so it's false to claim they did — and we also don't quote other news sources, except once in blue moon or threeo when a news source becomes itself part of the news. There are at least three of these in the article.
BTW, I couldn't verify that Zwizwai "supported this view".
I didn't get all the way through the source-check.
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.
At least three times, quotes from news sources have been put between quotation marks, and attributed to the people whose comments were being described by those news sources. That's misattribution — the commenters did not say exactly that, so it's false to claim they did — and we also don't quote other news sources, except once in blue moon or threeo when a news source becomes itself part of the news. There are at least three of these in the article.
BTW, I couldn't verify that Zwizwai "supported this view".
I didn't get all the way through the source-check.
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.
The worst examples of misattributed quotes from sources (doubly unacceptable per previous review) haven't been addressed. From what I can tell, the only quote in here that isn't a misattributed source-quote is the one at the end of the third paragraph.
As I closely study the VOA paragraph about Zwizwai, tbh I have trouble making any sense of it. I could make some guesses but have no confidence in the guesses. Odds are I can't verify anything based on that VOA sentence.
(I'm not even going to try to explain about the peculiar status of VOA text; treating it like any other biased source, such as the Zimbabwe government paper, is okay.)
This story is fast approaching the end of its freshness window. (Just saying, brace yourself; it may become necessary to accept this article was a learning experience, and move on. I too have put a lot of work into it, find it interesting, and will be disappointed if we don't whip it into shape in time to publish.)
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.
The worst examples of misattributed quotes from sources (doubly unacceptable per previous review) haven't been addressed. From what I can tell, the only quote in here that isn't a misattributed source-quote is the one at the end of the third paragraph.
As I closely study the VOA paragraph about Zwizwai, tbh I have trouble making any sense of it. I could make some guesses but have no confidence in the guesses. Odds are I can't verify anything based on that VOA sentence.
(I'm not even going to try to explain about the peculiar status of VOA text; treating it like any other biased source, such as the Zimbabwe government paper, is okay.)
This story is fast approaching the end of its freshness window. (Just saying, brace yourself; it may become necessary to accept this article was a learning experience, and move on. I too have put a lot of work into it, find it interesting, and will be disappointed if we don't whip it into shape in time to publish.)
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.
It's very rare for a reviewer to stretch the freshness guidelines this far. The story seems to me to be worthy of our readers' attention and not overtaken by further developments.
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.
It's very rare for a reviewer to stretch the freshness guidelines this far. The story seems to me to be worthy of our readers' attention and not overtaken by further developments.
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.
