Talk:Australian swim team pulled from Rio training pool when water turns 'soupy'

Review of revision 4238731 [Not ready]

Revision 4238731 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: On preliminary check for easily-found passages too close to source, I found seven of them, add up to a significant fraction of the whole article. (If the prelim check picks up a bunch of stuff I also assume there's more that would only be discovered on closer inspection during in-depth review.) Specifically I picked up seven passages that were identical to, or scuffed-up from, the USA Today source. These encompassed most of the second half of the lede, a bunch of the second half of the second sentence of the second paragraph, much of the third paragraph, and most of the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. See the advice at WN:PILLARS#own and the discussion at WN:Plagiarism. 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 4238731 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: On preliminary check for easily-found passages too close to source, I found seven of them, add up to a significant fraction of the whole article. (If the prelim check picks up a bunch of stuff I also assume there's more that would only be discovered on closer inspection during in-depth review.) Specifically I picked up seven passages that were identical to, or scuffed-up from, the USA Today source. These encompassed most of the second half of the lede, a bunch of the second half of the second sentence of the second paragraph, much of the third paragraph, and most of the first sentence of the fourth paragraph. See the advice at WN:PILLARS#own and the discussion at WN:Plagiarism. 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 4238925 [Passed]

Revision 4238925 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4238925 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:46, 6 August 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.