Concerning distance from source (usually listed under criterion "copyright"). Don't copy passages and then "scuff them up"; one doesn't avoid accusations of plagiary that way. You should be taking the information from the sources and then, based on your understanding of it, producing an entirely original presentation. Your own choice of which facts to include; how to arrange them; paragraph structure, sentence structure, phrase structure; turns of phrase and word choices. When you've done all that, there should be little similarity of your text to the sources; but as a sanity check, you generally shouldn't end up with more than three consecutive words identical to a source, with obvious exceptions such as titles. Note, however, that you shouldn't be setting out to avoid long runs of consecutive words, because that would mean starting with a source passage and then "scuffing it up", which is not a recipe for genuine distance from source. Here's an example of what not to do, from the current article text.
Reuters: could alarm Western powers which have accused Russia of beefing up its troops along its border
here: could alarm Western Governments who have accused Russia of increasing the numbers of its troops along the border
Is it clear that these are the same passage? Another:
BBC: spokesman told Interfax news agency that the exercise was the first in a series intended to improve the unity of the air force.
here: spokesman told the Interfax News Agency that the exercises were intended to improve the unity of the air force
In comparing with the first two listed sources, I did find some other passages too close to source (though these two were the longest I spotted); I suspended my comparison after finding this much. As reviewer, I need to remain sufficiently independent for review (conceptually, I need to not be a coauthor); so I didn't feel the extend of the distance-from-source problem would be within my purview to fix.
Concerning attribution. (I didn't choose to list this as a not-ready review criterion, as it seemed possible I might be able to cope with the problems during review; though of course it's always better for the reporter to eliminate these things before the reviewer gets to it.)
Some refinements on the vague advice "attribute claims to who said them":
Beware of effectively anonymous attributions, as occurred here with "a move many are calling..."; if you can't be more specific than that, leave it out. Broad interpretations are likely best left to the reader: provide available evidence and let the reader exercise judgement in analyzing it.
Beware of subjective analysis by news services; we give news services credit for exclusives (typically interviews), just as we would expect them to credit us for material from an interview we did, but we don't report on another news service's analysis under usual circumstances (the obvious exception being when the news service becomes part of the story).
It is appropriate to say which news service reported information if there may be some question about the accuracy of the information (such as when different news services are disagreeing with each other); but when a news service reports something we've no reason to doubt, it can be merely cumbersome to say which service each fact came from. This is, of course, a judgement call we have to make; and although I can make some guesses, I couldn't have an informed opinion on your choices till engaged in the deep 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.
Concerning distance from source (usually listed under criterion "copyright"). Don't copy passages and then "scuff them up"; one doesn't avoid accusations of plagiary that way. You should be taking the information from the sources and then, based on your understanding of it, producing an entirely original presentation. Your own choice of which facts to include; how to arrange them; paragraph structure, sentence structure, phrase structure; turns of phrase and word choices. When you've done all that, there should be little similarity of your text to the sources; but as a sanity check, you generally shouldn't end up with more than three consecutive words identical to a source, with obvious exceptions such as titles. Note, however, that you shouldn't be setting out to avoid long runs of consecutive words, because that would mean starting with a source passage and then "scuffing it up", which is not a recipe for genuine distance from source. Here's an example of what not to do, from the current article text.
Reuters: could alarm Western powers which have accused Russia of beefing up its troops along its border
here: could alarm Western Governments who have accused Russia of increasing the numbers of its troops along the border
Is it clear that these are the same passage? Another:
BBC: spokesman told Interfax news agency that the exercise was the first in a series intended to improve the unity of the air force.
here: spokesman told the Interfax News Agency that the exercises were intended to improve the unity of the air force
In comparing with the first two listed sources, I did find some other passages too close to source (though these two were the longest I spotted); I suspended my comparison after finding this much. As reviewer, I need to remain sufficiently independent for review (conceptually, I need to not be a coauthor); so I didn't feel the extend of the distance-from-source problem would be within my purview to fix.
Concerning attribution. (I didn't choose to list this as a not-ready review criterion, as it seemed possible I might be able to cope with the problems during review; though of course it's always better for the reporter to eliminate these things before the reviewer gets to it.)
Some refinements on the vague advice "attribute claims to who said them":
Beware of effectively anonymous attributions, as occurred here with "a move many are calling..."; if you can't be more specific than that, leave it out. Broad interpretations are likely best left to the reader: provide available evidence and let the reader exercise judgement in analyzing it.
Beware of subjective analysis by news services; we give news services credit for exclusives (typically interviews), just as we would expect them to credit us for material from an interview we did, but we don't report on another news service's analysis under usual circumstances (the obvious exception being when the news service becomes part of the story).
It is appropriate to say which news service reported information if there may be some question about the accuracy of the information (such as when different news services are disagreeing with each other); but when a news service reports something we've no reason to doubt, it can be merely cumbersome to say which service each fact came from. This is, of course, a judgement call we have to make; and although I can make some guesses, I couldn't have an informed opinion on your choices till engaged in the deep 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 reporter made improvements to address the above review concerns (thank you). There were still significant distance-from-source problems, attribution in need of adjustment (significant labor for the reviewer, though the measures in this kind of adjustment are more straightforward, closer to the "only one way to fix" ideal), and some analysis in need of removal for neutrality (a major element of Wikinews neutrality is that we don't inject analysis/interpretation in our voice; we can report that someone else anayzed things a certain way — for a dramatic example, see here) — but we don't indulge in it ourselves.
I suggest to the reporter, as an aid to distance from source, aggressively homogenized synthesis. I've seen excellent synthesis writing in which each sentence (or even clause) contains material from distant points in the sources, often from different sources; while on the other hand information items that occur adjacent to each other in a source are apt to end up quite distance from each other in the synthesis.
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.
The reporter made improvements to address the above review concerns (thank you). There were still significant distance-from-source problems, attribution in need of adjustment (significant labor for the reviewer, though the measures in this kind of adjustment are more straightforward, closer to the "only one way to fix" ideal), and some analysis in need of removal for neutrality (a major element of Wikinews neutrality is that we don't inject analysis/interpretation in our voice; we can report that someone else anayzed things a certain way — for a dramatic example, see here) — but we don't indulge in it ourselves.
I suggest to the reporter, as an aid to distance from source, aggressively homogenized synthesis. I've seen excellent synthesis writing in which each sentence (or even clause) contains material from distant points in the sources, often from different sources; while on the other hand information items that occur adjacent to each other in a source are apt to end up quite distance from each other in the synthesis.
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.
Done --Pi zero (talk) 17:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)