I was readily able to find long passages copied from the sources. Don't copy passages, and don't copy passages and then "scuff them up". Don't use directly quoted material without putting it between quotation marks and attributing it to who said it. See WN:PILLARS#own. While you get your information from the sources, your presentation of the facts should be entirely your own. We recommend read the sources and then write based on your understanding of them. Use your own choice of what facts to include; your own arrangement of those facts; your own paragraph structure, sentence structure, phrase structure; your own word choices and turns of phrase. When you've done all that, there should be little similarity between your text and the sources texts, but as a sanity check, you shouldn't have more than three consecutive words identical to a source, with obvious exceptions such as titles (and direct quotes, but only if they're actually treated as direct quotes). As noted, it's possible to have text much too close to source without having more than three consecutive words identical.
Here, large parts of the second paragraph are word-for-word from the first source. Some of this, at least, is stuff that was directly quoted in the source and appears as unquoted text here; some is not. But at least three sentences in that paragraph are substantially unchanged from that source.
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 was readily able to find long passages copied from the sources. Don't copy passages, and don't copy passages and then "scuff them up". Don't use directly quoted material without putting it between quotation marks and attributing it to who said it. See WN:PILLARS#own. While you get your information from the sources, your presentation of the facts should be entirely your own. We recommend read the sources and then write based on your understanding of them. Use your own choice of what facts to include; your own arrangement of those facts; your own paragraph structure, sentence structure, phrase structure; your own word choices and turns of phrase. When you've done all that, there should be little similarity between your text and the sources texts, but as a sanity check, you shouldn't have more than three consecutive words identical to a source, with obvious exceptions such as titles (and direct quotes, but only if they're actually treated as direct quotes). As noted, it's possible to have text much too close to source without having more than three consecutive words identical.
Here, large parts of the second paragraph are word-for-word from the first source. Some of this, at least, is stuff that was directly quoted in the source and appears as unquoted text here; some is not. But at least three sentences in that paragraph are substantially unchanged from that source.
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.
Some edits were made to increase distance from source. Truthfully, though, the edits made were far less extensive than the problem. Without even looking at the later sources, there are still long passages of the second paragraph verbatim from source (and even longer near-verbatim). To understand the problem better, take a look at this, and consider what it implies. You can't even see the full extent of the problem from that, because it only shows verbatim copies; as I've remarked, passages can be too close without having long verbatim passages. Also, in at least one case there, the original passage, which is copied verbatim, was actually a direct quote — between quotation-marks — in the source, and then appears without quotes here. You can provide a direct quote that's in a source, but you have to treat it as a direct quote, which means putting it between quotation marks and attributing it to who said it. And other than direct quotes, you should be, at least, devising entirely different ways to say things; by which I mean, not just replacing one word with another, but using a different sentence structure, with the ideas in a different order. (Prefer active voice, though; don't fall back on passive voice as a way to rearrange the order of things in a sentence.)
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.
Some edits were made to increase distance from source. Truthfully, though, the edits made were far less extensive than the problem. Without even looking at the later sources, there are still long passages of the second paragraph verbatim from source (and even longer near-verbatim). To understand the problem better, take a look at this, and consider what it implies. You can't even see the full extent of the problem from that, because it only shows verbatim copies; as I've remarked, passages can be too close without having long verbatim passages. Also, in at least one case there, the original passage, which is copied verbatim, was actually a direct quote — between quotation-marks — in the source, and then appears without quotes here. You can provide a direct quote that's in a source, but you have to treat it as a direct quote, which means putting it between quotation marks and attributing it to who said it. And other than direct quotes, you should be, at least, devising entirely different ways to say things; by which I mean, not just replacing one word with another, but using a different sentence structure, with the ideas in a different order. (Prefer active voice, though; don't fall back on passive voice as a way to rearrange the order of things in a sentence.)
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 incident was on Sunday; it would be easier to justify counting this stale than fresh. Most of the sources were from Monday, three days ago. Giving the benefit of doubt on when new information came to light, I'm allowing it. This has gone through several not-ready/revise/resubmit cycles.
There were still several long passages from later sources. Revisions by the reporter had increased distance from passages in the first source, but I found some more was called for in that regard as well. There were also some issues of verification, attribution, and neutrality. See the detailed 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.
The incident was on Sunday; it would be easier to justify counting this stale than fresh. Most of the sources were from Monday, three days ago. Giving the benefit of doubt on when new information came to light, I'm allowing it. This has gone through several not-ready/revise/resubmit cycles.
There were still several long passages from later sources. Revisions by the reporter had increased distance from passages in the first source, but I found some more was called for in that regard as well. There were also some issues of verification, attribution, and neutrality. See the detailed 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.
