About half the text of this article is too close to its source. Avoid copying sources' words phrases or sentence structure; the rule-of-thumb on words is no more than three consecutive words identical to a source (with common-sense exceptions like titles), but substituting in synonyms ("scuffing up" the text) doesn't change sentence structure. The smaller stuff I could and would clean up within my purview as independent reviewer — if that were all that was needed.
The lede is too close to that of AFP, "scuffed up" a bit but still copying sentence structure and some distinctive phrasing.
The second paragraph is identical to UKPA. Although much of it is a direct quote, there are lots of very different ways to arrange the explanatory words outside the quotation marks, and what's here is identical in both words and structure.
The start of the third paragraph is four words verbatim, which could easily have been changed; it's a case where a different word really would make a difference. Find a different way of expressing that it's "currently" and the problem is solved; if it's a way that changes the grammatical structure of that part of the sentence, so much the better.
The fourth paragraph should be further from its AFP source.
In the fifth paragraph, the only 'distance' issue I note is that the words framing the direct quote should —and easily could— be structurally different from the source (which also presents the direct quote followed by "he said."
The sixth paragraph has a long passage verbatim from The Guardian.
I couldn't verify the final sentence: it appears to be later this month rather than than this week, and I'm at all clear that what is to be released qualifies as a "full policy". (If this were the only significant problem with the article I could probably find a way to tweak it into shape, but these things add up.)
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.
About half the text of this article is too close to its source. Avoid copying sources' words phrases or sentence structure; the rule-of-thumb on words is no more than three consecutive words identical to a source (with common-sense exceptions like titles), but substituting in synonyms ("scuffing up" the text) doesn't change sentence structure. The smaller stuff I could and would clean up within my purview as independent reviewer — if that were all that was needed.
The lede is too close to that of AFP, "scuffed up" a bit but still copying sentence structure and some distinctive phrasing.
The second paragraph is identical to UKPA. Although much of it is a direct quote, there are lots of very different ways to arrange the explanatory words outside the quotation marks, and what's here is identical in both words and structure.
The start of the third paragraph is four words verbatim, which could easily have been changed; it's a case where a different word really would make a difference. Find a different way of expressing that it's "currently" and the problem is solved; if it's a way that changes the grammatical structure of that part of the sentence, so much the better.
The fourth paragraph should be further from its AFP source.
In the fifth paragraph, the only 'distance' issue I note is that the words framing the direct quote should —and easily could— be structurally different from the source (which also presents the direct quote followed by "he said."
The sixth paragraph has a long passage verbatim from The Guardian.
I couldn't verify the final sentence: it appears to be later this month rather than than this week, and I'm at all clear that what is to be released qualifies as a "full policy". (If this were the only significant problem with the article I could probably find a way to tweak it into shape, but these things add up.)
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.
Two other points:
Is the NYT source used for anything? The "Sources" section is only to identify the sources from which the information in the article was actually drawn; site policy disallows listing unused sources there.
The headline uses passive voice; a good headline should use active voice.
There was one lengthy verbatim passage that hadn't been cleared up; I reckoned just the one was reasonably within my purview as an independent reviewer.
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 was one lengthy verbatim passage that hadn't been cleared up; I reckoned just the one was reasonably within my purview as an independent reviewer.
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.
