Based on what all three sources about the protest say, I have real doubts whether the number of arrests is 96. This requires one or another change to the article too large for a reviewer (without qualifying from review) — adding sources or altering the article text or both.
All three sources mention the number 96. Two of them do so with the exact same words, making it clear that these words represent a single source (one sincerely hopes one of these sources purchased the rights to use the other's words). So we really have just two versions of this information. The Reuters version says 96 were arrested. The Independent, though, says 96 arrests were reported before the violence, which seems to suggest the total number of arrests may be higher. If this number was reported before the violence, one has to wonder whether the exact number 96 in the other source was a confusion. I find myself unable to verify this number that you've made very prominent in the article. Either additional sources are needed, or the article has to be altered to somehow either reflect the ambiguity or leave the unverified information out. If the additional-source route is taken, it would have to be something(s) clearly independent of the othrers.
For neutrality, you shouldn't be asserting that the arrestees were hard-line opponents of same-six-marriage; this is asserting something about a large number of people that cannot easily be know about them all. This could be fixed simply by making the opposition to same-sex marriage a description of the march instead of a description of the arrestees. This problem occurs in both the headline and the lede.
You shouldn't be starting with source passages and modifying them. Use your own phrase structure and avoid imitating peculiar turns of phrase and word choices. After you've done all these things, a rule of thumb says you shouldn't have more than three consecutive words identical to a source, with obvious exceptions like titles. Phrase in the lede "arrested 96 hard-line opponents to" is an example of a violation of that rule of thumb that shouldn't have happened in the first place. "park grounds around Les Invalides monument" shouldn't have happened either (though a missing word "the" technically avoids the rule of thumb), and indeed it's not clear that's a good description (not clear Les Invalides is "a" monument). I also noticed the last sentence has some significant similarities to source.
I didn't source-check the entire article before hitting on the 96 problem. So there may be additional such problems with closeness-to-source; it sure would be appreciated if any other such were eliminated before resubmission.
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.
Based on what all three sources about the protest say, I have real doubts whether the number of arrests is 96. This requires one or another change to the article too large for a reviewer (without qualifying from review) — adding sources or altering the article text or both.
All three sources mention the number 96. Two of them do so with the exact same words, making it clear that these words represent a single source (one sincerely hopes one of these sources purchased the rights to use the other's words). So we really have just two versions of this information. The Reuters version says 96 were arrested. The Independent, though, says 96 arrests were reported before the violence, which seems to suggest the total number of arrests may be higher. If this number was reported before the violence, one has to wonder whether the exact number 96 in the other source was a confusion. I find myself unable to verify this number that you've made very prominent in the article. Either additional sources are needed, or the article has to be altered to somehow either reflect the ambiguity or leave the unverified information out. If the additional-source route is taken, it would have to be something(s) clearly independent of the othrers.
For neutrality, you shouldn't be asserting that the arrestees were hard-line opponents of same-six-marriage; this is asserting something about a large number of people that cannot easily be know about them all. This could be fixed simply by making the opposition to same-sex marriage a description of the march instead of a description of the arrestees. This problem occurs in both the headline and the lede.
You shouldn't be starting with source passages and modifying them. Use your own phrase structure and avoid imitating peculiar turns of phrase and word choices. After you've done all these things, a rule of thumb says you shouldn't have more than three consecutive words identical to a source, with obvious exceptions like titles. Phrase in the lede "arrested 96 hard-line opponents to" is an example of a violation of that rule of thumb that shouldn't have happened in the first place. "park grounds around Les Invalides monument" shouldn't have happened either (though a missing word "the" technically avoids the rule of thumb), and indeed it's not clear that's a good description (not clear Les Invalides is "a" monument). I also noticed the last sentence has some significant similarities to source.
I didn't source-check the entire article before hitting on the 96 problem. So there may be additional such problems with closeness-to-source; it sure would be appreciated if any other such were eliminated before resubmission.
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.
Hi Pi Zero,
Thankyou for your help editing. I am still getting used to working the site. I created a new page as I was unsure how to edit the title. Laura UOW LauraCasaceli (talk)
Comments by reviewer:
I had to give it a massive cleanup: I hope the author looks through the 'history' and sees the stylistic changes made and learns from them.
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.
Comments by reviewer:
I had to give it a massive cleanup: I hope the author looks through the 'history' and sees the stylistic changes made and learns from them.
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.
