Style: Not ready: Headline wants some improvement. See below.
Comments by reviewer:
I've made formatting improvements, and have also eliminated some neutrality issues; neutrality here includes not only avoiding a skewed impression, but also avoid judgements about opinions or uncertain facts. A basic technique to avoid judgements is to attribute opinions and claims to their source, so the reporter is stating objectively that a certain party said them, rather than presenting them as fact or ascribing them too vaguely.
Here, it says 'questions are being raised'. Who is raising these questions? It's not incidental that active voice is preferred for reporting: if you try to put that in active voice, you discover that the subject, who raises the questions, is missing.
Moreover, on preliminary source-check I didn't actually see any mention of these questions. Which makes it a verifiability as well as neutrality problem. Are they there somewhere and I didn't see them? And if so, who is asking them? (If they were asked by the source then they aren't news.)
"Stosur felt it important" — says who? It's not our place to speculate about Stosur's state of mind. Attribute it to who said it.
I haven't undertaken a systematic source-check (which covers mainly verifiability, copyright, and somewhat neutrality), besides the matter of the questions being raised, I've also noticed I wasn't finding the three-weeks-since-Carlsbad in the sources. Check that, please; what do the sources verify about it? Keep in mind that it generally takes much more time and effort for a reviewer to determine that something isn't verified by the sources than to determine that it is.
The headline gives no hint of what sport, or where in the world (or otherwise who Stosur is, other than implicitly a player destined for the US Open of whatever sport it is).
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.
Style: Not ready: Headline wants some improvement. See below.
Comments by reviewer:
I've made formatting improvements, and have also eliminated some neutrality issues; neutrality here includes not only avoiding a skewed impression, but also avoid judgements about opinions or uncertain facts. A basic technique to avoid judgements is to attribute opinions and claims to their source, so the reporter is stating objectively that a certain party said them, rather than presenting them as fact or ascribing them too vaguely.
Here, it says 'questions are being raised'. Who is raising these questions? It's not incidental that active voice is preferred for reporting: if you try to put that in active voice, you discover that the subject, who raises the questions, is missing.
Moreover, on preliminary source-check I didn't actually see any mention of these questions. Which makes it a verifiability as well as neutrality problem. Are they there somewhere and I didn't see them? And if so, who is asking them? (If they were asked by the source then they aren't news.)
"Stosur felt it important" — says who? It's not our place to speculate about Stosur's state of mind. Attribute it to who said it.
I haven't undertaken a systematic source-check (which covers mainly verifiability, copyright, and somewhat neutrality), besides the matter of the questions being raised, I've also noticed I wasn't finding the three-weeks-since-Carlsbad in the sources. Check that, please; what do the sources verify about it? Keep in mind that it generally takes much more time and effort for a reviewer to determine that something isn't verified by the sources than to determine that it is.
The headline gives no hint of what sport, or where in the world (or otherwise who Stosur is, other than implicitly a player destined for the US Open of whatever sport it is).
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 problems with facts I didn't find in the sources. Things like Halep being Romanian number 1. Those really ate up time, struggling to figure out which of them were really not in the sources and whether they were likely to be true and whether the notion of "obvious facts" could possibly to stretched to cover them.
There were passages too close to source. Don't copy source passages and "scuff them up"; use your own sentence structure and phrase structure, and avoid imitating peculiar word choices and turns of phrase. It's a good sign if your passages contain info from widely separated parts of sources, even from multiple sources, and info from a given source passage may be widely scattered in your article. When you've done all that, as a final sanity check, you shouldn't have more than three consecutive words identical to a source, with obvious exceptions like titles.
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 problems with facts I didn't find in the sources. Things like Halep being Romanian number 1. Those really ate up time, struggling to figure out which of them were really not in the sources and whether they were likely to be true and whether the notion of "obvious facts" could possibly to stretched to cover them.
There were passages too close to source. Don't copy source passages and "scuff them up"; use your own sentence structure and phrase structure, and avoid imitating peculiar word choices and turns of phrase. It's a good sign if your passages contain info from widely separated parts of sources, even from multiple sources, and info from a given source passage may be widely scattered in your article. When you've done all that, as a final sanity check, you shouldn't have more than three consecutive words identical to a source, with obvious exceptions like titles.
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.
