Talk:Australian adaptive rowers prepare as Paralympics looms

Review of revision 1508592 [Not ready]

Revision 1508592 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: WN:OR calls for detailed reporter's notes. The template says this too. Everything in an OR is sourced, just as everything in a synthesis article is sourced, except that the reporter's notes count as an additional source. There should be lots of reporter's notes; you should be aiming to provide more than we need to verify the article. But you've provided no reporter's notes at all; so the article is, in fact, entirely unsourced. Note that, in addition to verifying the article from the reporter's notes, it also matters whether the author has an accumulated reputation here. 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 1508592 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: WN:OR calls for detailed reporter's notes. The template says this too. Everything in an OR is sourced, just as everything in a synthesis article is sourced, except that the reporter's notes count as an additional source. There should be lots of reporter's notes; you should be aiming to provide more than we need to verify the article. But you've provided no reporter's notes at all; so the article is, in fact, entirely unsourced. Note that, in addition to verifying the article from the reporter's notes, it also matters whether the author has an accumulated reputation here. 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.

There are also style problems here. Right off hand, I observe that the first paragraph starts with some purple prose ("On the icy waters of..."); and the first paragraph is, well, chatty. The first paragraph of a news article, called the lede, should succinctly answer as many as possible of the basic questions about the focal news event of the article. That also means the lede makes the case for newsworthiness. Here newsworthiness will have to rely entirely on the OR aspect of the article, yet the first paragraph doesn't even mention that there is any OR involved; instead, it appears to describe an ongoing process (more like continental drift than like an earthquake). So verifiability isn't the only thing I could have not-ready'd the article for. --Pi zero (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I've modified the lede a bit, and the notes are here. Therefore I'm resubmitting. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Notes per request

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Tim Collins (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

• I have requested file rotations for those that need it. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1510148 [Not ready]

Revision 1510148 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: See below: Comments by reviewer: The main problem here is that this stuff is actually all exclusive comment from Horrie, but that isn't made clear. There should be copious use of "Horrie told our reporters", "Horrie says", etc etc. Our exclusive is the story here, but right now it isn't obviously clear that there's very much exclusive here at all. There's a little bit of his opinion ('improved in recent years') that is presented unattributed; that is, presented as simple fact. Also, the newsworthiness depends on the OR, so the OR should be made clear as above. Accordingly, I could possibly have marked NPOV and Newsworthiness as Not Ready; I decided that would be a touch mean, given that the issues there revolve around the style problem above. Resolve that, and the other issues are also resolved. A relatively trivial point; can we have some explanation of what "an Eight" is, please? A big timesink for OR articles like this is the painstaking check of the notes to verify everything. Although I'm knocking this back on style, I stopped to take the effort to verify the contents in full. Whilst a copyedit may require certain details to be double-checked at the next review, the article basicaly checks out. Now that I've done that check, it should be much easier to review and that should in turn mean it will not wait on the queue very long next time. It's almost there! 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 1510148 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: See below: Comments by reviewer: The main problem here is that this stuff is actually all exclusive comment from Horrie, but that isn't made clear. There should be copious use of "Horrie told our reporters", "Horrie says", etc etc. Our exclusive is the story here, but right now it isn't obviously clear that there's very much exclusive here at all. There's a little bit of his opinion ('improved in recent years') that is presented unattributed; that is, presented as simple fact. Also, the newsworthiness depends on the OR, so the OR should be made clear as above. Accordingly, I could possibly have marked NPOV and Newsworthiness as Not Ready; I decided that would be a touch mean, given that the issues there revolve around the style problem above. Resolve that, and the other issues are also resolved. A relatively trivial point; can we have some explanation of what "an Eight" is, please? A big timesink for OR articles like this is the painstaking check of the notes to verify everything. Although I'm knocking this back on style, I stopped to take the effort to verify the contents in full. Whilst a copyedit may require certain details to be double-checked at the next review, the article basicaly checks out. Now that I've done that check, it should be much easier to review and that should in turn mean it will not wait on the queue very long next time. It's almost there! 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.

• • Thanks, we are still learning about the Wikinews process. I've just wiki-linked "eight", since it would interrupt the flow a bit I think. I'm looking at the rest of the points now. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
    • I think the concerns listed above have been sorted now. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1513458 [Passed]

Revision 1513458 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There are two very good reasons why I perhaps shouldn't have reviewed this. I feel there are also commonsense reasons to overrule those, but I feel obliged to explain my actions: The first is that the article was put up for review by an IP. We've had problems in the past with unrelated IPs putting articles that weren't complete up for review. It's an even bigger problem with original reporting: OR often, as in this case, relies on a user having accumulated a reputation, so that we can trust their notes. I went and reviewed anyway because, after looking through the diffs, you (JJ Harrison) had clearly made a big effort to sort the issues out. The second reson is that I've supposedly backed off reviewing on medical grounds. I don't trust myself; in particular, with the responsibility of thorough factchecking. But in this case, I'd done a review a few days before (right before my self-imposed ban) which included full factchecking, so I'm happy to carry my own review over. When the style issues are considered in isolation, this was a review so simple I was willing to put faith in myself to go ahead with it. 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 1513458 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There are two very good reasons why I perhaps shouldn't have reviewed this. I feel there are also commonsense reasons to overrule those, but I feel obliged to explain my actions: The first is that the article was put up for review by an IP. We've had problems in the past with unrelated IPs putting articles that weren't complete up for review. It's an even bigger problem with original reporting: OR often, as in this case, relies on a user having accumulated a reputation, so that we can trust their notes. I went and reviewed anyway because, after looking through the diffs, you (JJ Harrison) had clearly made a big effort to sort the issues out. The second reson is that I've supposedly backed off reviewing on medical grounds. I don't trust myself; in particular, with the responsibility of thorough factchecking. But in this case, I'd done a review a few days before (right before my self-imposed ban) which included full factchecking, so I'm happy to carry my own review over. When the style issues are considered in isolation, this was a review so simple I was willing to put faith in myself to go ahead with it. 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.

• • Thanks. The IP was me forgetting to log in. The IP didn't make any edits to the article content anyway. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)