In the now-third paragraph, second and third sentences, are awfully close to source — second to AP, third to ABC. Do not copy source passages and "scuff them up", as this does not avoid accusations of plagiary; see WN:PILLARS#own. The first sentence of the lede was also too close to source, but I was able to mitigate that problem whilst fixing other problems there; it may be useful to look at that and consider why it was a problem before (though of course I was limited, in changing it, by my need to remain an independent reviewer).
This says the two people were employees; in fact, it says so twice. I didn't find that in the sources; it sounds more like only one of them was.
For some reason, btw, I had initial difficulty accessing the Global News source; I was able to do it, finally, by making a local copy of the page and stripping all the javascript out of it.
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.
In the now-third paragraph, second and third sentences, are awfully close to source — second to AP, third to ABC. Do not copy source passages and "scuff them up", as this does not avoid accusations of plagiary; see WN:PILLARS#own. The first sentence of the lede was also too close to source, but I was able to mitigate that problem whilst fixing other problems there; it may be useful to look at that and consider why it was a problem before (though of course I was limited, in changing it, by my need to remain an independent reviewer).
This says the two people were employees; in fact, it says so twice. I didn't find that in the sources; it sounds more like only one of them was.
For some reason, btw, I had initial difficulty accessing the Global News source; I was able to do it, finally, by making a local copy of the page and stripping all the javascript out of it.
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 distance-from-source problem was really quite extensive. The whole paragraph was involved. The things I did to mitigate the problem are not as good as what could be done by a writer who is trying to not imitate the sources, because as a reviewer I was limited to things that wouldn't get me too "involved" in the article; if I got too involved I'd have to disqualify myself from reviewing it. One of the techniques I used was cutting out material, which is a useful technique for reviewers because one can do it without getting very "involved".
There were some factual and technical problems here and there; watch out for those. The use of commas with appositives needed fixing in a number of places; even the Wikinews:Style guide, which is kept deliberately quite short so writers can realistically read it in its entirety, has a section devoted to appositives. See the detailed history of edits during review (I deliberately make small edits during review so each can have a specific explanation and, hopefully, a clear diff to see exactly what was done).
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 distance-from-source problem was really quite extensive. The whole paragraph was involved. The things I did to mitigate the problem are not as good as what could be done by a writer who is trying to not imitate the sources, because as a reviewer I was limited to things that wouldn't get me too "involved" in the article; if I got too involved I'd have to disqualify myself from reviewing it. One of the techniques I used was cutting out material, which is a useful technique for reviewers because one can do it without getting very "involved".
There were some factual and technical problems here and there; watch out for those. The use of commas with appositives needed fixing in a number of places; even the Wikinews:Style guide, which is kept deliberately quite short so writers can realistically read it in its entirety, has a section devoted to appositives. See the detailed history of edits during review (I deliberately make small edits during review so each can have a specific explanation and, hopefully, a clear diff to see exactly what was done).
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.
