Just what happened, and just when did it happen? These are basic questions, which should be succinctly answered in the lede, defining the specific focus and thus establishing newsworthiness. I suspect you'll find the specific thing that happened was on Wednesday, hence the source dates.
One of the drugs is normally taken off-label, i.e., at a higher dose than the label says. The other drug, if I'm understanding the sources correctly, is ordinarily taken at a lower dose than on the label, and in fact, if I'm reading rightly, that's the part that Planned Parenthood is most worried about.
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.
Just what happened, and just when did it happen? These are basic questions, which should be succinctly answered in the lede, defining the specific focus and thus establishing newsworthiness. I suspect you'll find the specific thing that happened was on Wednesday, hence the source dates.
One of the drugs is normally taken off-label, i.e., at a higher dose than the label says. The other drug, if I'm understanding the sources correctly, is ordinarily taken at a lower dose than on the label, and in fact, if I'm reading rightly, that's the part that Planned Parenthood is most worried about.
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.
Since the review stopped short of completion, it's possible there might be other problems with the article that have not yet been detected. Hoping not, of course. --Pi zero (talk) 12:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Large phrases have been copied from the sources. This is copyvio, and we can't publish in that form. What we need is for you to write the material in your own words. Don't copy source phrases; also, don't copy them and then "scuff them up" by changing a few words here and there (perhaps to synonyms). The information comes from the sources, but the presentation of it is entirely your own: your choice of facts, ordering of facts, paragraph structure, sentence structure. Avoid imitating distinctive word choices and turns of phrase. When you've done all that, there should be little similarity between your text and the sources, but as a sanity check, there generally shouldn't be more than three consecutive words identical to source, with obvious exceptions like titles. (This is one of the pillars at WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing.)
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.
Large phrases have been copied from the sources. This is copyvio, and we can't publish in that form. What we need is for you to write the material in your own words. Don't copy source phrases; also, don't copy them and then "scuff them up" by changing a few words here and there (perhaps to synonyms). The information comes from the sources, but the presentation of it is entirely your own: your choice of facts, ordering of facts, paragraph structure, sentence structure. Avoid imitating distinctive word choices and turns of phrase. When you've done all that, there should be little similarity between your text and the sources, but as a sanity check, there generally shouldn't be more than three consecutive words identical to source, with obvious exceptions like titles. (This is one of the pillars at WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing.)
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.
Btw, I surgically altered the lede. "injunctive relief for the women of Arizona" is an interpretation, therefore doesn't conform to en.wn neutrality policy. In stating the objective facts here, necessary elements are the injunction, the state (Arizona), and the essence of what the injunction is against; there's not a lot of range in how to say this, so it seems a reasonable application of the principle "if there's only one way to fix it, there's no moral difference between the reviewer doing it themself and requiring someone else to do it". I considered this carefully, since en.wn policy only allows review by a reviewer independent of the writing of the article. --Pi zero (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 below. (not sure which checkbox to put this under; arguably could be NPOV)
Comments by reviewer:
I don't see PP saying it would outlaw the most common form.
I don't see where the "incentive" thing comes from.
The reason for giving technical details is to explain Planned Parenthood's position; without the position, there's no reason for the detail. Unfortunately, the wholesale removal of the paragraph about that position has left much of the technical detail without a purpose. In one case, you mention a need for surgical abortion putting the woman at risk, and by attributing this claim (claims should be attributed, as a matter of neutrality) I was able to painlessly justify this point. However there are still two other points that were objected to, but the objection is not articulated: requiring administration at the clinic, and requiring a higher does of one of the drugs.
Looking at these two sources myself, I see a passage describing an objection to requiring in-clinic administration, and I see a passage describing an objection to the combination of higher RU-486 dosage and in-clinic administration, but it's not clear to me which part of that is due to the RU-486 and which due to the in-clinic. You might consider looking for another source that clarifies this point.
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 below. (not sure which checkbox to put this under; arguably could be NPOV)
Comments by reviewer:
I don't see PP saying it would outlaw the most common form.
I don't see where the "incentive" thing comes from.
The reason for giving technical details is to explain Planned Parenthood's position; without the position, there's no reason for the detail. Unfortunately, the wholesale removal of the paragraph about that position has left much of the technical detail without a purpose. In one case, you mention a need for surgical abortion putting the woman at risk, and by attributing this claim (claims should be attributed, as a matter of neutrality) I was able to painlessly justify this point. However there are still two other points that were objected to, but the objection is not articulated: requiring administration at the clinic, and requiring a higher does of one of the drugs.
Looking at these two sources myself, I see a passage describing an objection to requiring in-clinic administration, and I see a passage describing an objection to the combination of higher RU-486 dosage and in-clinic administration, but it's not clear to me which part of that is due to the RU-486 and which due to the in-clinic. You might consider looking for another source that clarifies this point.
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 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 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.
