The first sentence of the lede, in the current draft, says the protests are all about COVID-19 countermeasures; however, both recent sources indicate the protests, while they started about COVID-19, are now about something else.
It's not clear from the sources that these protesters have been on about Vučić allegedly relaxing restrictions for political reasons; the sources mention criticism about this, it's just not clear the criticism was part of these protests.
There were only two passages I noticed, in my preliminary check, were very close to source: the list of kinds of events at the end of paragraph two, and the phrase "Fourteen police officers were injured". Each of these seems like it ought to be relatively straightforward to replace with something that wouldn't bear low-level similarity to the original; one wonders whether the phrasing around the latter could be rearranged to use active voice.
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 first sentence of the lede, in the current draft, says the protests are all about COVID-19 countermeasures; however, both recent sources indicate the protests, while they started about COVID-19, are now about something else.
It's not clear from the sources that these protesters have been on about Vučić allegedly relaxing restrictions for political reasons; the sources mention criticism about this, it's just not clear the criticism was part of these protests.
There were only two passages I noticed, in my preliminary check, were very close to source: the list of kinds of events at the end of paragraph two, and the phrase "Fourteen police officers were injured". Each of these seems like it ought to be relatively straightforward to replace with something that wouldn't bear low-level similarity to the original; one wonders whether the phrasing around the latter could be rearranged to use active voice.
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.
Hello, I changed somethings that you mentioned. But DW states that the protests remain because the protesters are mad at how the government handled COVID-19 and that is also stated in this article. The two passages that are close of the source can’t be rephrased I wouldn’t know how I could do that and not give enough information. The sentence about the fourteen injured police officers i can’t change that one because the police director said that and otherwise I would not give enough information. Finn.reports (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I realize it is sometimes hard to picture how to say things differently, until one has seen it done; so, on a one-time basis (I couldn't do as much regularly), I've tried to demonstrate how passages such as the fourteen-injured sentence (and the sentence before it which was also substantially from source) can be completely rearranged. Hopefully, this can serve as some general inspiration for this sort of thing.
Some of the English grammar was a bit rough, and I smoothed it (verb tense and number, things like that). As always, 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.
I realize it is sometimes hard to picture how to say things differently, until one has seen it done; so, on a one-time basis (I couldn't do as much regularly), I've tried to demonstrate how passages such as the fourteen-injured sentence (and the sentence before it which was also substantially from source) can be completely rearranged. Hopefully, this can serve as some general inspiration for this sort of thing.
Some of the English grammar was a bit rough, and I smoothed it (verb tense and number, things like that). As always, 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.
If I may criticize my own review of this, the lede really should mention the storming of parliament, in particular, since that is mentioned in the headline. --Pi zero (talk) 23:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
