Talk:Jet engine pollution is a health risk for over 50 million people in Europe, study says

Pre-review

Status:    Not ready

Version evaluated: 4788437

• Copyright: Not ready: See below.
• Newsworthiness: Passed
• Verifiability: Not ready: See below.
• NPOV: Passed
• Style: Not ready: See below.

Notes for author(s):

• Copyright:I didn't even both to link to the Earwig, it was that useless. Anyways, a manual check of the first source showed that around 1/3 of the article is copypastes. Here are them: "the health of over 50 million Europeans", "People living within a twenty kilometer radius from the biggest airports", "according to a study commissioned by the campaign group Transport & Environment (T&E)", and "ultrafine particles can increase the risk of respiratory diseases, cardiovascular diseases, neurological conditions, diabetes and pregnancy issues". Since I don't have the Earwig being helpful, I obviously didn't check sources not included here and there may be additional copyvios there. One or two of these may be unavoidable, but altogether they are too much.

• Verifiability:First, your 2 sources disagree on how many people are harmed (52 or 50). Second, one of your main sources, the New Scientist, is paywalled and can't be used. I personally was able to access it by clearing by cookies, but still it will need to be removed. This would leave a massive chunk of the article unverified

• Style:After removing the paywalled article, this is no longer synthesis.

• Other stuff:Please keep being (very) patient. You're being much more patient than I would have been. Hopefully one of your article will get actually reviewed soon. I also did a bit of minor stuff, you can check here:[1]

Notes for reviewer:

See above regarding copyright, don't trust the Earwig.

---

This is a pre-review only and is not part of the official review process. A pre-review is meant to help the article author or authors improve the article and increase the likelihood of getting published. This pre-review was not done by a reviewer and represents a recommendation that can be heeded or ignored.

Reply to pre-review

Ok, first of all I don't know why I don't see a reply button here, so I used "Add comment".

> Copyright:I didn't even both to link to the Earwig, it was that useless. Anyways, a manual check of the first source showed that around 1/3 of the article is copypastes

I don't understand. None of your example sentences can be found in my article. I don't do copypastes but probably some of my sentences have a close resemblance to the sources.

> First, your 2 sources disagree on how many people are harmed (52 or 50). Second

I disagree. The article from Phys.org says 52 million, New Scientist says more than 50 million. The statements are not in conflict.

> Second, one of your main sources, the New Scientist, is paywalled and can't be used. I personally was able to access it by clearing by cookies, but still it will need to be removed. This would leave a massive chunk of the article unverified

Cite sources -help page says: "It is acceptable to link to sites that require free registration, but never those that request payment to view content on the site"

New Scientist asks to create a free account but I just used private browsing to read the whole article. Lejar (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

"None of your example sentences can be found in my article" - What do you mean, they all can.

"The statements are not in conflict." - oops. My mistake, your 100% right.

"New Scientist asks to create a free account" - With an article limit before you have to pay to read more. @Lejar Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 15:29, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

> "None of your example sentences can be found in my article" - What do you mean, they all can.

Sorry, bad wording. I meant: None of those sentences can be found in the source articles.

> "New Scientist asks to create a free account" - With an article limit before you have to pay to read more

Okay, I didn't know that. Nonetheless, if it works in private browsing, is it not allowed to use as a source? Lejar (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, I got the sentences wrong (oops!) "The health of more than 50 million people living within 20 kilometres of the" and "according to a study commissioned by the campaign group Transport & Environment (T&E)" are the only real ones.

I don't believe this is allowed, honestly. I know that just clearing your cookies (which bypasses the Post's paywall) is not considered enough, so I think this isn't allowed but I'm not certain.

Also, by the way, biggest airports and busiest airports aren't necessarily the same. @Lejar Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

> Sorry, I got the sentences wrong (oops!) "The health of more than 50 million people living within 20 kilometres of the" and "according to a study commissioned by the campaign group Transport & Environment (T&E)" are the only real ones.

Fixed.

> Also, by the way, biggest airports and busiest airports aren't necessarily the same.

Fixed. Lejar (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. We still have the paywall problem though. @Lejar Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I replaced the New Scientist article with one from EuroNews. Lejar (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much. (Of course...) we have a (minor) issues now. Now we actually no longer have a source for over 50 million. I'm honestly not certain if we should keep over 50 million (since everyone does agree on that) or change it to 52 million (because thats what everyone but NYT says). I'll leave that to the reviewer. I think this could pass review at this point with only minor corrections. Great article and pretty interesting! @Lejar Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Paywall vs Free registration

Our policy for citing sources states that sites that require free registration are allowed to be used:

It is acceptable to link to sites that require free registration, but never those that request payment to view content on the site

– WN:Paywall

@Lejar, you couldn't reply to the pre-review likely because it wasn't signed.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I explained why it isn't really free-registration @Michael.C.Wright Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

But is the article now ready for review since I changed the paywalled source? Lejar (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Well...now it's stale so...@Lejar Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 13:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Lejar (talk) 13:31, 2 July 2024 (UTC)