The lede should be devoted to succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about the focal news event. Here the lede primarily describes something that isn't the focal news event, and only mentions the news event in a dependent clause. The second paragraph, at least, seems to echo this and also uses passive voice; decide what detail is to be expanded by each paragraph (per inverted pyramid style), and make the paragraph do that.
The headline needs improvement; it doesn't identify the country involved, doesn't use downstyle capitalization, and appears non-neutral in the way it uses the word caught. Not mentioning the country may touch on "neutrality" as well as "style".
The whole of the article has a judgmental quality to it. Less stating or implying value judgements is called for — which doesn't necessarily require omitting such, as one can attribute them. Attribution is key in WN:NPOV.
This story, as presented, is starting to lose freshness already; the newer source, whose date limits how recently anything in the article could possibly have come to light, is two days old now.
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 should be devoted to succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about the focal news event. Here the lede primarily describes something that isn't the focal news event, and only mentions the news event in a dependent clause. The second paragraph, at least, seems to echo this and also uses passive voice; decide what detail is to be expanded by each paragraph (per inverted pyramid style), and make the paragraph do that.
The headline needs improvement; it doesn't identify the country involved, doesn't use downstyle capitalization, and appears non-neutral in the way it uses the word caught. Not mentioning the country may touch on "neutrality" as well as "style".
The whole of the article has a judgmental quality to it. Less stating or implying value judgements is called for — which doesn't necessarily require omitting such, as one can attribute them. Attribution is key in WN:NPOV.
This story, as presented, is starting to lose freshness already; the newer source, whose date limits how recently anything in the article could possibly have come to light, is two days old now.
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:
Not enough issues from first review successfully addressed. Also I see there was a failure to engage with the first reviewer in discussion or respond to points in the review on the article's talk page. Elaboration on the talk page would help to explain how subsequent changes may or may not have addressed points from the first review.
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:
Not enough issues from first review successfully addressed. Also I see there was a failure to engage with the first reviewer in discussion or respond to points in the review on the article's talk page. Elaboration on the talk page would help to explain how subsequent changes may or may not have addressed points from the first review.
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.
There were some factual errors. That shouldn't have happened in the first place, and of course makes more work for review. Take a look at the edit history during review (try a diff of the part after adding the {{under review}} tag); there were the bits about "Thursday" (which may be a verification problem rather than actually wrong per se) and "curfew", but the biggest problem was the mischaracterization of Obama's remarks (like any good politician, he uses his words very carefully).
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.
There were some factual errors. That shouldn't have happened in the first place, and of course makes more work for review. Take a look at the edit history during review (try a diff of the part after adding the {{under review}} tag); there were the bits about "Thursday" (which may be a verification problem rather than actually wrong per se) and "curfew", but the biggest problem was the mischaracterization of Obama's remarks (like any good politician, he uses his words very carefully).
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.
