Talk:Scotland sets date for referendum

Review of revision 1852048 [Not ready]

Revision 1852048 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Far too-close wording Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: There are sufficient examples through the article which are far too-closely matched to the ABC report, and what they've drawn from Reuters wire report for me to be at-all happy progressing further through this in-terms of review. Examples: Sub: "North Sea Oil revenues alongside farming, fishing and whisky industries are all argued by the SNP to be valuable local resources that would allow Scotland to stand and prosper on its own." ABC: "The SNP argues that North Sea Oil revenues combined with the local farming, fishing and whisky industries would enable an independent Scotland to prosper." It's not blatant, or flagrant, copyright violation. Doesn't look intentional, it's simply too-closely matching, making it a derivative of the source instead of an originally written synthesis. 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.

Revision 1852048 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:48, 22 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Far too-close wording Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: There are sufficient examples through the article which are far too-closely matched to the ABC report, and what they've drawn from Reuters wire report for me to be at-all happy progressing further through this in-terms of review. Examples: Sub: "North Sea Oil revenues alongside farming, fishing and whisky industries are all argued by the SNP to be valuable local resources that would allow Scotland to stand and prosper on its own." ABC: "The SNP argues that North Sea Oil revenues combined with the local farming, fishing and whisky industries would enable an independent Scotland to prosper." It's not blatant, or flagrant, copyright violation. Doesn't look intentional, it's simply too-closely matching, making it a derivative of the source instead of an originally written synthesis. 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.

Review of revision 1852532 [Not ready]

Revision 1852532 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: What looks like a second article was added after the {{Haveyoursay}}. The result is not an article but a mishmash, and obviously cannot address the preexisting problems with the content that was already there and has not been changed. (The second of the new sources is listed with the wrong title, btw.) 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.

Revision 1852532 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:43, 23 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: What looks like a second article was added after the {{Haveyoursay}}. The result is not an article but a mishmash, and obviously cannot address the preexisting problems with the content that was already there and has not been changed. (The second of the new sources is listed with the wrong title, btw.) 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.

Review of revision 1852794 [Not ready]

Revision 1852794 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 06:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: The article does not state why this is news now. When was the announcement made? Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: There are additional issues with dates. The author should read the style guide to make it compliant. This is true for sources and in the article text. Wikipedia links would be helpful as an international audience may not know what the Westminster system is. There probably should be some paragraphs componeted because right now, each sentence is its own paragraph. Categories, an infobox and pictures would also be nice. I have not checked the copyright issues mentioned in the previous review as these are a different set of issues. 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.

Revision 1852794 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 06:11, 23 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: The article does not state why this is news now. When was the announcement made? Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: There are additional issues with dates. The author should read the style guide to make it compliant. This is true for sources and in the article text. Wikipedia links would be helpful as an international audience may not know what the Westminster system is. There probably should be some paragraphs componeted because right now, each sentence is its own paragraph. Categories, an infobox and pictures would also be nice. I have not checked the copyright issues mentioned in the previous review as these are a different set of issues. 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.

Review of revision 1852981 [Passed]

Revision 1852981 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm a tad uncomfortable with the graphic, as it stops back in 2012. But, I think the end-result of the work put in on this is to make it far more balanced. The first copy I reviewed could-well have been failed on NPOV too; there are issues with much of the mainstream press taking an anti-independence stance and throwing away their own neutrality. However, I don't want to get into that too much; I'll be voting Yes and just want anyone reporting on this issue to be aware of media bias. 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.

Revision 1852981 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm a tad uncomfortable with the graphic, as it stops back in 2012. But, I think the end-result of the work put in on this is to make it far more balanced. The first copy I reviewed could-well have been failed on NPOV too; there are issues with much of the mainstream press taking an anti-independence stance and throwing away their own neutrality. However, I don't want to get into that too much; I'll be voting Yes and just want anyone reporting on this issue to be aware of media bias. 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.