I pursued this with an eye on the clock, as it is nearing the end of its freshness (that is, it's on the outer end of the 2–3 day range during which freshness is routinely considered discretionary for a synthesis article). Unfortunately, problems that would need addressing are extensive enough that I did not feel I could fix them myself, as independent reviewer.
There are at least three 'long' word sequences identical to source (I hadn't checked everything). The second sentence of the (now) fourth paragraph, mentioning the university. The last sentence of the third paragraph, mentioning Haniya, all but the first few words. The sentence about Abbas is close to source and contains a somewhat-over-length verbatim run
The sentence about Abbas also suffers from some confusing ambiguity about who "he" is in the sentence. The last two sentences of the third paragraph, about Hammas, also have some awkwardness due to the fact that both things were actually said by Haniya; also, as written it isn't clear who Haniya is.
The bit about Israeli leaders' "disquiet" seems a dubious interpretation; note that the source took it as "bemusement" (which is of course an opinion and we'd probably want to avoid repeating it, as we'd have to attribute the opinion per WN:NPOV and the opinion doesn't seem important enough to justify all that trouble).
The first sentence of the last paragraph, about trying to increase global influence, seems like analysis best left to the reader — present the reader with facts, rather than analysis of them.
I only source-checked about half of the article; so the rest would need checking for problems similar to the ones I've mentioned.
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.
I pursued this with an eye on the clock, as it is nearing the end of its freshness (that is, it's on the outer end of the 2–3 day range during which freshness is routinely considered discretionary for a synthesis article). Unfortunately, problems that would need addressing are extensive enough that I did not feel I could fix them myself, as independent reviewer.
There are at least three 'long' word sequences identical to source (I hadn't checked everything). The second sentence of the (now) fourth paragraph, mentioning the university. The last sentence of the third paragraph, mentioning Haniya, all but the first few words. The sentence about Abbas is close to source and contains a somewhat-over-length verbatim run
The sentence about Abbas also suffers from some confusing ambiguity about who "he" is in the sentence. The last two sentences of the third paragraph, about Hammas, also have some awkwardness due to the fact that both things were actually said by Haniya; also, as written it isn't clear who Haniya is.
The bit about Israeli leaders' "disquiet" seems a dubious interpretation; note that the source took it as "bemusement" (which is of course an opinion and we'd probably want to avoid repeating it, as we'd have to attribute the opinion per WN:NPOV and the opinion doesn't seem important enough to justify all that trouble).
The first sentence of the last paragraph, about trying to increase global influence, seems like analysis best left to the reader — present the reader with facts, rather than analysis of them.
I only source-checked about half of the article; so the rest would need checking for problems similar to the ones I've mentioned.
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 1673634 [Passed]
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I've pushed reviewer's purview on this, recognizing this is the article's last chance, going further than is practical or desirable to go on a regular basis. Hopefully the author will internalize the sorts of problems I was addressing, and the examples here of ways to address them.
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.
I've pushed reviewer's purview on this, recognizing this is the article's last chance, going further than is practical or desirable to go on a regular basis. Hopefully the author will internalize the sorts of problems I was addressing, and the examples here of ways to address them.
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.
