Talk:New Zealand begins process to consider changing national flag design

Review of revision 3478619 [Not ready]

Revision 3478619 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: A number of lengthy passages are copied from source. Don't copy passages from source. Don't imitate peculiar turns of phrase from source. See WN:PILLARS#own. In this case, most of the longest problem passages I noticed were from The New Zealand Herald. For perspective, take a look at this. (It's generated by toollabs:dupdet.) The first, thus longest, match is a direct quote, nothing to worry about; but there follow a large number of matches all of which are unacceptable. Skipping well down the list (since the earlier items are much easier to object to), consider "formal flag design process". Why would you imitate that phrase? It wouldn't have been difficult to arrange the sentence in a different way that would completely obliterate that sequence. Probably every match on the list down to that one is problematic; after that things are mostly uninteresting. Two of those matches are actually a single long phrase that's slightly disguised in teh list by a slight change of tense of the verb in the middle of it: "The government's Flag Consideration Project announced a series of roadshows and hui". (Btw, the term hui if used in the article should be explained in the article.) A long phrase copied from the Guardian source is "to have their name etched on a commemorative national flag pole". There are a few other scattered passages verbatim from source. 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 3478619 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:13, 5 May 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: A number of lengthy passages are copied from source. Don't copy passages from source. Don't imitate peculiar turns of phrase from source. See WN:PILLARS#own. In this case, most of the longest problem passages I noticed were from The New Zealand Herald. For perspective, take a look at this. (It's generated by toollabs:dupdet.) The first, thus longest, match is a direct quote, nothing to worry about; but there follow a large number of matches all of which are unacceptable. Skipping well down the list (since the earlier items are much easier to object to), consider "formal flag design process". Why would you imitate that phrase? It wouldn't have been difficult to arrange the sentence in a different way that would completely obliterate that sequence. Probably every match on the list down to that one is problematic; after that things are mostly uninteresting. Two of those matches are actually a single long phrase that's slightly disguised in teh list by a slight change of tense of the verb in the middle of it: "The government's Flag Consideration Project announced a series of roadshows and hui". (Btw, the term hui if used in the article should be explained in the article.) A long phrase copied from the Guardian source is "to have their name etched on a commemorative national flag pole". There are a few other scattered passages verbatim from source. 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.

Review of revision 3480665 [Not ready]

Revision 3480665 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: There's a serious, hopefully readily fixed, problem with the lede. It's too involved for me to fix while remaining independent for review. What in particular actually happened on Tuesday? This should be crystal clear from the lede; and the lede should be able to answer it quite succinctly. But I really can't tell from this lede, or the article as a whole. The initiative was evidently announced over three months ago (Waitangi Day), so that's not it. We've got past most of the hurdles on this; I finally noticed this problem as I started gearing up for the rigorous verification against the sources, which I'd hoped would go straightforwardly and in likely an hour or less I'd have been publishing. 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 3480665 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: There's a serious, hopefully readily fixed, problem with the lede. It's too involved for me to fix while remaining independent for review. What in particular actually happened on Tuesday? This should be crystal clear from the lede; and the lede should be able to answer it quite succinctly. But I really can't tell from this lede, or the article as a whole. The initiative was evidently announced over three months ago (Waitangi Day), so that's not it. We've got past most of the hurdles on this; I finally noticed this problem as I started gearing up for the rigorous verification against the sources, which I'd hoped would go straightforwardly and in likely an hour or less I'd have been publishing. 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.

Thanks for your comments Pi Zero. I hope the lede is better now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ThatGirlFromUOW (talk • contribs) 10:52, 7 May 2015‎

It seems clear to me that that last review was a failure on my part: I demonstrably failed to explain clearly enough what the problem was. I've also discussed it with someone else offline, and they didn't understand what I was objecting to either. And I'm really not inclined to hold up this article for another whole day, endangering its freshness, in order to make a second attempt at something I've already demonstrated I don't really know how to do. So I'm going to try really hard to find another solution to the problem. --Pi zero (talk) 11:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3483281 [Passed]

Revision 3483281 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:23, 7 May 2015 (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 3483281 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:23, 7 May 2015 (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.