Our neutrality policy forbids us to assert analysis or opinion in our own voice; we can report that such-and-such (relevant) person said these things, but we can't ourselves assert them as true. Also beware also of unverifiably extreme statements ("the Republican candidate nobody thought could win").
Cruz has not, in fact, dropped out of the race completely. He's suspended his campaign. Kasich is not "the only thing..."; that's hyperbole. Be careful of oversimplifying the situation on the Democratic side, as well — the delegate count involves superdelegates. Things like that are the sort of "narrative" that mainstream news services like to tell, compromising their accuracy and neutrality.
The lede should be a sort, to-the-point paragraph briefly summarizing the focal event of the article by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and H about it. It should be written for an international audience (that's another of the pillars at WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing) who aren't going to have any idea what a Hoosier is. The current first paragraph talks about settling a debate, which is kind of misleading since it's a sure bet people all over the country are debating this stuff — you have to artificially limit "debate" to "Indiana primary" in order to make it work, which is a roundabout way of getting to the actual substance, which is the primary; the lede shouldn't be roundabout, it should get straight to the point. And the actual results aren't mentioned here until the second paragraph.
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.
Our neutrality policy forbids us to assert analysis or opinion in our own voice; we can report that such-and-such (relevant) person said these things, but we can't ourselves assert them as true. Also beware also of unverifiably extreme statements ("the Republican candidate nobody thought could win").
Cruz has not, in fact, dropped out of the race completely. He's suspended his campaign. Kasich is not "the only thing..."; that's hyperbole. Be careful of oversimplifying the situation on the Democratic side, as well — the delegate count involves superdelegates. Things like that are the sort of "narrative" that mainstream news services like to tell, compromising their accuracy and neutrality.
The lede should be a sort, to-the-point paragraph briefly summarizing the focal event of the article by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and H about it. It should be written for an international audience (that's another of the pillars at WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing) who aren't going to have any idea what a Hoosier is. The current first paragraph talks about settling a debate, which is kind of misleading since it's a sure bet people all over the country are debating this stuff — you have to artificially limit "debate" to "Indiana primary" in order to make it work, which is a roundabout way of getting to the actual substance, which is the primary; the lede shouldn't be roundabout, it should get straight to the point. And the actual results aren't mentioned here until the second paragraph.
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.
Concerns were addressed quite well; thank you. One weak point I was able to fix myself within reviewer's purview, by moving the paragraph break at the end of the lede one sentence further down.
Unfortunately, events have moved on, and at this point an article that says Kasich is expected to suspend his campaign is out-of-date — in our usual terminology, not fresh. It needs an update on this point. (Things work more smoothly as you get more experience — odds are good you won't have another article held up by the concerns from the first review, for example; combine that with rapid developments in a story, and here we are. It's fixable, though.)
There is another article on the review queue about Kasich, which I need to take a look at ASAP. Don't know yet how much overlap there may be between this article and that one.
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.
Concerns were addressed quite well; thank you. One weak point I was able to fix myself within reviewer's purview, by moving the paragraph break at the end of the lede one sentence further down.
Unfortunately, events have moved on, and at this point an article that says Kasich is expected to suspend his campaign is out-of-date — in our usual terminology, not fresh. It needs an update on this point. (Things work more smoothly as you get more experience — odds are good you won't have another article held up by the concerns from the first review, for example; combine that with rapid developments in a story, and here we are. It's fixable, though.)
There is another article on the review queue about Kasich, which I need to take a look at ASAP. Don't know yet how much overlap there may be between this article and that one.
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.
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.
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.
