Headline [edit]
This headline needs some clarification for an international audience, who cannot be assumed to know who Ned Kelly was (I've heard of him, but then, I have behind me a misspent youth of watching educational television :-). A well-chosen word or two might do the trick; but as the headline now stands, readers don't know from the headline that this is an historical figure rather than, say, a missing child case. --Pi zero (talk) 14:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Thank you! I was unsure of how much information to provide in the headline, hopefully the new title is an improvement? Aideenuow (talk) 2 September 2011
- Much better, I think. --Pi zero (talk) 17:56, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Review of revision 1281947 [Failed] [edit]
 |
Revision 1281947 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:58, 3 September 2011 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
- This has turned out, in practice, to be a series of passages, each too close to a source passage from which it is drawn.
- As a rule of thumb to start with, there shouldn't be more than three consecutive words verbatim from a source. Copying sentence structure with a few words altered doesn't prevent it from being plagiarism, either (note, we usually don't use the word "plagiarism", preferring the euphemistic "too close to the source"). Distinctive turns of phrase weigh heavily in determining over-closeness, too (like "resting place for the remains", for instance — which the rule of thumb also catches since it's five words).
- For example, the "entered history" paragraph as a whole is too close to the Telegraph source, imitating detailed structure of a quite extended passage (starting with the distinctive rhetorical device "entered Australian history"/"wrote his place in Australian history").
- Other examples include the paragraph starting "Attorney-General Robert Clark" which is too close to the second smh source, and the whole "input from ... DNA experts" list which is lifted verbatim from that source. Even "Victorian Institute of ... in Argentina" is an extensive passage copied verbatim, which is the sort of thing that there aren't many ways to say, so one could probably just mildly rearrange and then not worry about if it were the only such problem in the article.
- Other issues: If I'm reading the sources right, it was actually only about 20 months, which is not "over two years". And the news event itself (the announcement) took place on Thursday.
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. |
