I'm just not comfortable with the similarity to the CNN source of quotes. We have here a long series of extensive direct quotes — all of the quotes from the source, all but the last two in their entirety and in exactly the same order as in the source. Only some superficial differences in how they were introduced, one of which wasn't quite accurate; I fixed that, added some significant information that had been omitted but which brought it closer to the source, changed some superficial formatting that moved it further from the source. But the bottom line is, I can't get away from the sense this is at its heart substantially not distinct from the source. Choose a little of the source material. Something from another source entirely would be good; as is, the only information here not from CNN is the time of death.
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.
I'm just not comfortable with the similarity to the CNN source of quotes. We have here a long series of extensive direct quotes — all of the quotes from the source, all but the last two in their entirety and in exactly the same order as in the source. Only some superficial differences in how they were introduced, one of which wasn't quite accurate; I fixed that, added some significant information that had been omitted but which brought it closer to the source, changed some superficial formatting that moved it further from the source. But the bottom line is, I can't get away from the sense this is at its heart substantially not distinct from the source. Choose a little of the source material. Something from another source entirely would be good; as is, the only information here not from CNN is the time of death.
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 are a number of problems here, which I'd started to fix by removing the relevant passages — but in this particular case, I feel they collectively are a large enough part of the article that I'm in doubt of my independence if I pull them all.
No verification found for the one-sentence paragraph about hospice care being reported Tuesday of last week. This appears to have been missed(my bad :-( ) in the previous review.
The sentence "It defined him as a senator and as a man" is so out of context it's meaningless: the antecedent of "it" is one of the things that's been elided.
The last two quotes, Gingrich and Richardson, seem to me to have lost their original meaning due to being removed from their context.
This is essentially all from CNN, and the larger trailing part of it still feels like a (somewhat stripped down) version of the second CNN source, lacking its own identity as an article. The previous review should have been bolder in emphasizing this problem, but did recommend bringing in some additional material.
There is a wealth of biographical information in the sources — notably, in the non-CNN source — and yet there is vanishingly little biographical information in this article. There's far less than there was when the quotes were more complete, which may account for this problem not being so apparent at the first review (though, again, there was a recommendation there to include more). But there isn't even the stock mention of his survivors — spouse(s), children, whatever.
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 are a number of problems here, which I'd started to fix by removing the relevant passages — but in this particular case, I feel they collectively are a large enough part of the article that I'm in doubt of my independence if I pull them all.
No verification found for the one-sentence paragraph about hospice care being reported Tuesday of last week. This appears to have been missed(my bad :-( ) in the previous review.
The sentence "It defined him as a senator and as a man" is so out of context it's meaningless: the antecedent of "it" is one of the things that's been elided.
The last two quotes, Gingrich and Richardson, seem to me to have lost their original meaning due to being removed from their context.
This is essentially all from CNN, and the larger trailing part of it still feels like a (somewhat stripped down) version of the second CNN source, lacking its own identity as an article. The previous review should have been bolder in emphasizing this problem, but did recommend bringing in some additional material.
There is a wealth of biographical information in the sources — notably, in the non-CNN source — and yet there is vanishingly little biographical information in this article. There's far less than there was when the quotes were more complete, which may account for this problem not being so apparent at the first review (though, again, there was a recommendation there to include more). But there isn't even the stock mention of his survivors — spouse(s), children, whatever.
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.
Changes were needed for grammar and mechanics, some source-checking problems, distance from source. Note that ellipsis was needed in the direct quotes, as it would be factually incorrect to present the words as having been said sequentially with nothing between.
Of several problems mentioned in previous review with quotes changing, or losing, their meaning when taken out of context, one was addressed by the writer, but others remained and were repaired minimally by the 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.
Changes were needed for grammar and mechanics, some source-checking problems, distance from source. Note that ellipsis was needed in the direct quotes, as it would be factually incorrect to present the words as having been said sequentially with nothing between.
Of several problems mentioned in previous review with quotes changing, or losing, their meaning when taken out of context, one was addressed by the writer, but others remained and were repaired minimally by the 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.
