Style: Not ready: See comments on User talk:Wikiwide. There's a few other bits of knotty writing that need fixing.
Comments by reviewer:
I've attempted to improve the article. If the copyright and style issues can be fixed, it seems like an important and newsworthy story.
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.
Style: Not ready: See comments on User talk:Wikiwide. There's a few other bits of knotty writing that need fixing.
Comments by reviewer:
I've attempted to improve the article. If the copyright and style issues can be fixed, it seems like an important and newsworthy story.
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 lede — to remind — should briefly summarize the focus by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about it. In should be self-contained, written for an international audience, and, again, brief. The lede here needs some work:
It refers to "the trial", as if the reader knew what trial was being referred to, but hasn't explained yet what sort of trial is involved; indeed, one can eventually work it out but is never quite directy told. There should be a plain up-front direct identification of the trial, before one starts referring to it as if it were known. (Saying the lede should be self-contained refers to the fact that it shouldn't depend on the headline.)
The lede doesn't answer basic question where for an international audience; the name of the country, and the name of the state within the country, should be there.
The lede is atm too long. Details, as well as background, should be in later paragraphs, per inverted pyramid style. It might suffice, if the other two points above were also addressed, to simply insert a paragraph break between the first and second sentences, making most of the current first paragraph into a second paragraph separate from the lede.
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 lede — to remind — should briefly summarize the focus by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about it. In should be self-contained, written for an international audience, and, again, brief. The lede here needs some work:
It refers to "the trial", as if the reader knew what trial was being referred to, but hasn't explained yet what sort of trial is involved; indeed, one can eventually work it out but is never quite directy told. There should be a plain up-front direct identification of the trial, before one starts referring to it as if it were known. (Saying the lede should be self-contained refers to the fact that it shouldn't depend on the headline.)
The lede doesn't answer basic question where for an international audience; the name of the country, and the name of the state within the country, should be there.
The lede is atm too long. Details, as well as background, should be in later paragraphs, per inverted pyramid style. It might suffice, if the other two points above were also addressed, to simply insert a paragraph break between the first and second sentences, making most of the current first paragraph into a second paragraph separate from the lede.
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.
There were quite a few passages too close to the sources. There were even some relatively large passages identical to source. Keeping in mind that it's much easier to understand what needs doing once one has seen it done, I unertook to fix these problems where I found them. I'm viewing this as an investment in the future; honestly, on a regular basis it'd be rather hard on the reviewer, and after doing it here I had to think carefully about whether I'd have to disqualify myself from publishing on grounds of having gotten myself too involved. But I hope to have been of help. :-)
See WN:PILLARS#own, which is standard advice on avoiding too-close-to-source problems.
There were also a few details here and there that I cut as I didn't successfully verify them from the sources.
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.
There were quite a few passages too close to the sources. There were even some relatively large passages identical to source. Keeping in mind that it's much easier to understand what needs doing once one has seen it done, I unertook to fix these problems where I found them. I'm viewing this as an investment in the future; honestly, on a regular basis it'd be rather hard on the reviewer, and after doing it here I had to think carefully about whether I'd have to disqualify myself from publishing on grounds of having gotten myself too involved. But I hope to have been of help. :-)
See WN:PILLARS#own, which is standard advice on avoiding too-close-to-source problems.
There were also a few details here and there that I cut as I didn't successfully verify them from the sources.
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.
There's a rule of thumb, btw, that after one has done all that stuff described at PILLARS, though there oughtn't be anything left similar to sources, one can check that there aren't more than three consecutive words identical to source. --Pi zero (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2014 (UTC)Reply
