Some points observed on first read-through (I've not studied the sources):
The third paragraph is analysis. It's not a problem to say she's the favorite for the nomination, but saying it's "unlucky" is analysis, and so is a statement about the consequences of an indictment, let alone what she would do if indicted. See WN:Attribute.
At the end of the fourth paragraph, a bit of rephrasing at least is called for; the sentence is in passive voice, putting the actor (Dept of Justice) at the end, and saying "aimed" is loaded terminology — "planned" or "scheduled" would be purely factual, or if somebody actually said it's deliberate timing one could attribute to them. (I expect it is deliberate, but we don't impose our expectations on the reader; we give them the facts so they're empowered to draw their own conclusions.)
In the fifth paragraph, avoid ascribing such accusations to unnamed "critics", as that's a slippery slope to rumor-mongering. (Some people wonder if politician such-and-such makes ritual human sacrifices to Cthulhu; I don't know if it's true or not, but some people have asked the question.) In this case it's important to be clear on where the accusations come from. (There are less loaded situations where vague attribution may be sufficient; but political accusations are definitely something we need to handle with tongs held in welder's gloves.)
In the sixth paragraph, my immediate impulse is to wonder about "majority" of a set of legal experts when I don't know how the set was selected.
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.
Some points observed on first read-through (I've not studied the sources):
The third paragraph is analysis. It's not a problem to say she's the favorite for the nomination, but saying it's "unlucky" is analysis, and so is a statement about the consequences of an indictment, let alone what she would do if indicted. See WN:Attribute.
At the end of the fourth paragraph, a bit of rephrasing at least is called for; the sentence is in passive voice, putting the actor (Dept of Justice) at the end, and saying "aimed" is loaded terminology — "planned" or "scheduled" would be purely factual, or if somebody actually said it's deliberate timing one could attribute to them. (I expect it is deliberate, but we don't impose our expectations on the reader; we give them the facts so they're empowered to draw their own conclusions.)
In the fifth paragraph, avoid ascribing such accusations to unnamed "critics", as that's a slippery slope to rumor-mongering. (Some people wonder if politician such-and-such makes ritual human sacrifices to Cthulhu; I don't know if it's true or not, but some people have asked the question.) In this case it's important to be clear on where the accusations come from. (There are less loaded situations where vague attribution may be sufficient; but political accusations are definitely something we need to handle with tongs held in welder's gloves.)
In the sixth paragraph, my immediate impulse is to wonder about "majority" of a set of legal experts when I don't know how the set was selected.
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.
Sorry for the prompt action, but I believe I've now addressed your changes.
Well, Wikinews neutrality is meant to be something that, once one gets the hang of it, is easy to do; but one has to get the hang of it first, which calls for practice. You got this up while it was still quite fresh, which is not only good in itself but also maximizes time for iterations in the review process, and fortunately I was able to take a look last night and we're hopefully that much closer to publishable state. (A quick preliminary read-through of your changes suggests you did pretty well at addressing that set of concerns.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Had some verification problems. The last difficulty was that I didn't find in the sources that 'legal experts' had said these things about the chances of indictment. There's mention of a Democratic senator saying indictment wouldn't happen (but I saw no mention of why not), and there's a journalist opining it won't happen and why not; but legal experts? Something could be said but it would be entirely new-written, which a reviewer definitely can't do.
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.
Had some verification problems. The last difficulty was that I didn't find in the sources that 'legal experts' had said these things about the chances of indictment. There's mention of a Democratic senator saying indictment wouldn't happen (but I saw no mention of why not), and there's a journalist opining it won't happen and why not; but legal experts? Something could be said but it would be entirely new-written, which a reviewer definitely can't do.
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.
