Talk:Scientists report chemotherapy cocktail may cause adult women to grow new egg cells

Review of revision 4268150 [Not ready]

Revision 4268150 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede needs improvements that are more intrusive than anything I could do without compromising my status as an independent reviewer (in essence, the reviewer has to avoid becoming a coauthor). The lede should be short and to-the-point, avoiding details or background in favor of briefly summarizing the focal event by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H about it, in the process showing that the focal event is specific, relevant, and fresh — in a word, newsworthy. Here, the first clause (about half the lede) is background, whereas background really should be in a later paragraph, further down the inverted pyramid, and certainly shouldn't occupy the front of the lede as it's not the most important thing. Then, the lede fails to communicate just what has happened recently (a publication, apparently), or just when it happened (Monday, I gather), or what the results were (the headline says more about that than the lede does, atm). There's advice about "when" on page WN:Five Ws and an H, that if the lede doesn't contain a "day" word, such as "today" or "yesterday" or the name of a day of the week, there's probably something wrong. Here's another useful principle: if the reader were to stop reading at the end of the lede, their understanding of the story would not be fragmentary; abbreviated, yes, but not fragmentary. The headline will want tweaking to make clear who is making the claim; for an article like this, attribution in the headline is typically "scientists", "researchers", "report", or the like. Btw, though I haven't started the serious source-check yet (other than a preliminary check for obvious similarities to source), I noticed this said fourteen patients and ten healthy, whilst EurekaAlert said fourteen patients and twelve healthy; was that just a typo, or was something deeper going on? 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 4268150 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede needs improvements that are more intrusive than anything I could do without compromising my status as an independent reviewer (in essence, the reviewer has to avoid becoming a coauthor). The lede should be short and to-the-point, avoiding details or background in favor of briefly summarizing the focal event by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H about it, in the process showing that the focal event is specific, relevant, and fresh — in a word, newsworthy. Here, the first clause (about half the lede) is background, whereas background really should be in a later paragraph, further down the inverted pyramid, and certainly shouldn't occupy the front of the lede as it's not the most important thing. Then, the lede fails to communicate just what has happened recently (a publication, apparently), or just when it happened (Monday, I gather), or what the results were (the headline says more about that than the lede does, atm). There's advice about "when" on page WN:Five Ws and an H, that if the lede doesn't contain a "day" word, such as "today" or "yesterday" or the name of a day of the week, there's probably something wrong. Here's another useful principle: if the reader were to stop reading at the end of the lede, their understanding of the story would not be fragmentary; abbreviated, yes, but not fragmentary. The headline will want tweaking to make clear who is making the claim; for an article like this, attribution in the headline is typically "scientists", "researchers", "report", or the like. Btw, though I haven't started the serious source-check yet (other than a preliminary check for obvious similarities to source), I noticed this said fourteen patients and ten healthy, whilst EurekaAlert said fourteen patients and twelve healthy; was that just a typo, or was something deeper going on? 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.

(Btw, it's now quite late where I am, so I won't be doing any more review for, at best, most of the next half day. It's not impossible another reviewer might come by sooner. --Pi zero (talk) 04:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC))

Soooooo greenlight to work on this or wait for more? Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Green light, absolutely; time is at a premium here, as, in stark contrast to Wikipedia, here there definitely is a deadline. The ball is in your court, to revise and resubmit for consideration of whatever reviewer chooses to take it up (probably me, tomorrow, but not necessarily). --Pi zero (talk) 04:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, gave it a scrub and rearrange. I like the funnel opening, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: When you believe it's ready to be re-reviewed, submit it; there should be a button on the not-ready tag at the top of the page. --Pi zero (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4268343 [Passed]

Revision 4268343 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: It's been longer than I care to admit since I worked on science news, even though it's a favourite topic. Hopefully I've made no messes :P 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 4268343 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: It's been longer than I care to admit since I worked on science news, even though it's a favourite topic. Hopefully I've made no messes :P 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.

Headline spelling

Small typo in "scientists", @Pi zero:; I can't rename in my account. -- Zanimum (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC) Zanimum (talk) 20:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

It's almost always undesirable to rename after publication, and a few months back we had some page-move vandalism, so now I usually fully protect moves on published articles. A typo like this is a pretty obvious exception to the rule. Fixed; thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2016 (UTC)