We ask for two mutually independent trust-worthy sources corroborating the focal event of a synthesis article; and we strongly recommend reading them all before starting to write, as this makes it easier to write accurately, neutrally, and without accidental copyvio.
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.
We ask for two mutually independent trust-worthy sources corroborating the focal event of a synthesis article; and we strongly recommend reading them all before starting to write, as this makes it easier to write accurately, neutrally, and without accidental copyvio.
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.
Review of revision 4218481 [Not ready]
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I'll get to the "copyvio" concern here momentarily, but there's a bigger-picture difficulty. In evident response to the review concern that there was only one source corroborating the focal event, two more sources about the focal event were added; but it appears that they weren't used, just listed. Wikinews policy on citing sources calls for not listing unused sources; also, on Wikinews our two-source rule serves a variety of purposes, not just verification, and it can't well serve some of those purposes just by existing, it has to contribute to the article content. This is notably true of the "copyright" concern: If you read just one source on a focal event, and then write an article about the event based on that one source, you're very likely to end up with a close-copy of that one source, whereas if you read multiple sources about the event and then write about it you have a much better chance of successfully devising an original presentation of material. It's also important, of course, to be clear on what you're trying to not do; which brings me to the specific technical concern here.
I didn't get very far into my preliminary copyright check, which laboriously unearths extended passages either copied from source, or copied and then scuffed up (which doesn't prevent accusations of plagiary); because I'd barely started when I discovered that the third paragraph is, almost in its entirety, close-copy from the first-listed source (the one that, evidently, was read before the article was written). It's not a verbatim copy, but that's the point: the changes are superficial, it's really still the same text. On what is needed, and why, see WN:PILLARS#own and WN:Plagiarism.
Please eliminate such similarity-to-source difficulties from the entire article before resubmitting; and also, please use the listed sources.
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'll get to the "copyvio" concern here momentarily, but there's a bigger-picture difficulty. In evident response to the review concern that there was only one source corroborating the focal event, two more sources about the focal event were added; but it appears that they weren't used, just listed. Wikinews policy on citing sources calls for not listing unused sources; also, on Wikinews our two-source rule serves a variety of purposes, not just verification, and it can't well serve some of those purposes just by existing, it has to contribute to the article content. This is notably true of the "copyright" concern: If you read just one source on a focal event, and then write an article about the event based on that one source, you're very likely to end up with a close-copy of that one source, whereas if you read multiple sources about the event and then write about it you have a much better chance of successfully devising an original presentation of material. It's also important, of course, to be clear on what you're trying to not do; which brings me to the specific technical concern here.
I didn't get very far into my preliminary copyright check, which laboriously unearths extended passages either copied from source, or copied and then scuffed up (which doesn't prevent accusations of plagiary); because I'd barely started when I discovered that the third paragraph is, almost in its entirety, close-copy from the first-listed source (the one that, evidently, was read before the article was written). It's not a verbatim copy, but that's the point: the changes are superficial, it's really still the same text. On what is needed, and why, see WN:PILLARS#own and WN:Plagiarism.
Please eliminate such similarity-to-source difficulties from the entire article before resubmitting; and also, please use the listed sources.
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.
Review of revision 4218900 [Passed]
Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
There were some factual glitches. A few passages similar to source here and there, but not beyond what I could clear up. Attribute statistics so the reader knows where the information came from.
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 were some factual glitches. A few passages similar to source here and there, but not beyond what I could clear up. Attribute statistics so the reader knows where the information came from.
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.
