Talk:Japan to use renewable energy

Sourcing problems

• One of the sources is missing a URL. That needs to be fixed.

• One of the sources is in the WSJ, which is behind a paywall. Wikinews doesn't use pay-to-access sources.

--Pi zero (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I have fixed the sourcing problems noted above. Are there any other changes i need to make before it is ready to be published? - jessicalynnoraUOW

Review of revision 1272588 [Failed]

Revision 1272588 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The sources were changed but the content wasn't. At least some of the content is apparently not verified by the sources now listed; please fix this and resubmit for review. Article review has to rigorously check that every fact in the article is verified by the sources (among other things), which can become an exercise in frustration when a bunch of stuff in the article actually isn't in the sources; this should be much easier for the author to clear up, keeping in mind reviewer time is now at a premium with so many submissions in the review queue (not that reviewer time isn't always at a premium :-). Story seems to be anchored by draft on Friday, so the freshness clock is ticking but still has some ticks left on it. Questions about the above? Ask. 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.

Revision 1272588 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The sources were changed but the content wasn't. At least some of the content is apparently not verified by the sources now listed; please fix this and resubmit for review. Article review has to rigorously check that every fact in the article is verified by the sources (among other things), which can become an exercise in frustration when a bunch of stuff in the article actually isn't in the sources; this should be much easier for the author to clear up, keeping in mind reviewer time is now at a premium with so many submissions in the review queue (not that reviewer time isn't always at a premium :-). Story seems to be anchored by draft on Friday, so the freshness clock is ticking but still has some ticks left on it. Questions about the above? Ask. 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.

Clarification. The goal is to have

• a list of sources, all of which are acceptable,
• an article that is fully verified by those sources, and
• no sources listed that are not actually used (listing unused sources is actually a policy violation).

I have a theory about the otherwise puzzling fact that authors (and even sometimes reviewers) forget WSJ is pay-to-view and therefore unacceptable. Maybe they're accessing the web from academic institutions that subscribe to WSJ?

Some rewriting of this article is needed, to satisfy all three of the above criteria simultaneously; from your remarks elsewhere, I gather it may need a lot of rewriting to do that. When an article is reviewed, usually the reviewer has to tweak a few things here and there, and those tweaks not uncommonly include removing some detail somewhere that the reviewer was unable to find in the sources; but when a very large amount of that is required, the reviewer isn't the person best equipped to do it, and in any case if the reviewer has to change the article too much they'd no longer be uninvolved (which is to say, they wouldn't be allowed to publish it themselves).

Hope this helps. --Pi zero (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1273301 [Passed]

Revision 1273301 of this article has been reviewed by Brian (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I have reviewed Pi zero concerns before and have decided that this article has been improved to take in account of them. After reading the sources and this article again I have decided to pass it. 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 1273301 of this article has been reviewed by Brian (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I have reviewed Pi zero concerns before and have decided that this article has been improved to take in account of them. After reading the sources and this article again I have decided to pass it. 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.