Talk:Melbourne terror raids nab suspects

Revision 856423 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 856423 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Sources

I have a problem with the person writing this article using their own website as a source. This is circular and opens up questions of of WN:COI and WN:NPOV. --SVTCobra 01:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am going to have to agree with SVTCobra on this. It also calls into question factual accuracy. One could say that doing this would be an attempt to generate false information, though I am not saying this is the case. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 02:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll take the blame for my part in this. But, I think this kind of thing should be picked up in review for all of the reasons cited above. Just my 2 cents--RockerballAustralia (talk) 05:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I agreee with SVTCodra and DragonFire1024 but the matter isn't irresolvable. Probably the easiest way is for the Wikinews article to be the original, for the original research to be noted here, and then for the second article to incorporate or even duplicate the WN article under our license. --Killing Vector (talk) 12:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But the First XV source is NOT original work, it's just another synthesis article. --SVTCobra 13:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

The First XV News article is part synthesis, part original. The original reporting is from the press conference --RockerballAustralia (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2009 (UTC)