Talk:Florida frog skull survey shows spikes, say scientists

Review of revision 4554857 [Passed]

Revision 4554857 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 08:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There were a number of significant inaccuracies, a problem with presentation of statistical correlations (something mainstream news coverage is notoriously bad at), and some passages too close to source — in particular, the start of the last paragraph, including the entire first sentence and the first few words of the second, was copied from source and then "scuffed up" with a few superficial changes. Which should never be done; it does not avoid accusations of plagiary. Rearrange grammatical structure so that the similarities vanish. See the detailed history of edits during review. Truthfully, if I'd known how much I'd have to intervene to remedy problems, I'd have not-ready'd. I can't do this much to articles on an ongoing basis. (It also took about three or four times as much time to review as it ought to have.) 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 4554857 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 08:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There were a number of significant inaccuracies, a problem with presentation of statistical correlations (something mainstream news coverage is notoriously bad at), and some passages too close to source — in particular, the start of the last paragraph, including the entire first sentence and the first few words of the second, was copied from source and then "scuffed up" with a few superficial changes. Which should never be done; it does not avoid accusations of plagiary. Rearrange grammatical structure so that the similarities vanish. See the detailed history of edits during review. Truthfully, if I'd known how much I'd have to intervene to remedy problems, I'd have not-ready'd. I can't do this much to articles on an ongoing basis. (It also took about three or four times as much time to review as it ought to have.) 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.