First Wikinews article so apologies if I have made any newbie mistakes. Thought this might be a good one to ease myself in. Any guidance/tips/feedback appreciated. Finno (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re copyright: It isn't enough to change a word here and there. Change sentence structure; avoid distinctive words, turns of phrase, patterns of construction; and of course when possible recombine ideas so your sentences don't correspond one-to-one with source sentences at all. I adjusted some (see article history), which may help illustrate; there's at least one more, as I see the first sentence of the current second paragraph is too close to source (note the distinctive 'bring in line with').
Re verification: I didn't see source mention of tailoring; or brokering per se; or that the public debate was long-running.
Though I'm allowing the two sources are sufficiently independent, they are fairly similar; it wouldn't be a bad thing to introduce another source more different, if there is one.
Though the article does achieve minimal length for a standalone article, it wouldn't be a bad thing to have another sentence or two.
At the start of the review I made some moderately aggressive repairs, but I do need to remain sufficiently independent for review, and since it's not that long an article, anything I do is relatively large in context.
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.
Re copyright: It isn't enough to change a word here and there. Change sentence structure; avoid distinctive words, turns of phrase, patterns of construction; and of course when possible recombine ideas so your sentences don't correspond one-to-one with source sentences at all. I adjusted some (see article history), which may help illustrate; there's at least one more, as I see the first sentence of the current second paragraph is too close to source (note the distinctive 'bring in line with').
Re verification: I didn't see source mention of tailoring; or brokering per se; or that the public debate was long-running.
Though I'm allowing the two sources are sufficiently independent, they are fairly similar; it wouldn't be a bad thing to introduce another source more different, if there is one.
Though the article does achieve minimal length for a standalone article, it wouldn't be a bad thing to have another sentence or two.
At the start of the review I made some moderately aggressive repairs, but I do need to remain sufficiently independent for review, and since it's not that long an article, anything I do is relatively large in context.
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.
Note my structural adjustments for distance from source.
Didn't see support in sources for 'tailoring' games for lower rating; the point being made was, as I understand it, that games were being giving a lower rating than their content deserved, making them available to younger games, simply because there was no higher rating available.
See the history of edits during review.
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.
Note my structural adjustments for distance from source.
Didn't see support in sources for 'tailoring' games for lower rating; the point being made was, as I understand it, that games were being giving a lower rating than their content deserved, making them available to younger games, simply because there was no higher rating available.
See the history of edits during review.
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.
