A number of passages were too close to the sources. Don't copy source passages and 'scuff them up'; recast the entire story in your own way. Don't imitate sentence or phrase structure, and avoid peculiarly distinctive word choices and turns of phrase.
When explicitly attributing information in the article text to its source, consider why you're doing so (other than WN:NPOV). A news article should empower the reader to judge the merits (or demerits) of information, by identifying the quality of its origin. If a source says that the police said something, and if we believe the source is not inaccurately reporting what the police said, what the reader needs to know is that the police said it, not that the source reported it (and, indeed, it may be inaccurate to say the source reported it as fact, if the source was careful to say the police said it). Also, however, if something is exclusively said to a particular news service, we give credit to the service that got the exclusive, such as here where we should give credit to AFP that something was said specifically to them (and we know this because... the source we use gives AFP that same credit).
Note the edits during review; much more and I would have disqualified myself from review due to involvement in the article. (Fortunately, my personal circumstances today afforded me the option of effecting repairs rather than not-ready'ing).
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.
A number of passages were too close to the sources. Don't copy source passages and 'scuff them up'; recast the entire story in your own way. Don't imitate sentence or phrase structure, and avoid peculiarly distinctive word choices and turns of phrase.
When explicitly attributing information in the article text to its source, consider why you're doing so (other than WN:NPOV). A news article should empower the reader to judge the merits (or demerits) of information, by identifying the quality of its origin. If a source says that the police said something, and if we believe the source is not inaccurately reporting what the police said, what the reader needs to know is that the police said it, not that the source reported it (and, indeed, it may be inaccurate to say the source reported it as fact, if the source was careful to say the police said it). Also, however, if something is exclusively said to a particular news service, we give credit to the service that got the exclusive, such as here where we should give credit to AFP that something was said specifically to them (and we know this because... the source we use gives AFP that same credit).
Note the edits during review; much more and I would have disqualified myself from review due to involvement in the article. (Fortunately, my personal circumstances today afforded me the option of effecting repairs rather than not-ready'ing).
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.
Please either replace [[bg:Шестима мъртви след стрелба в Белгород (26 Април 2013 г., 11:24 ч.)]] with [[bg:Шестима мъртви след стрелба в Белгород]] or delete the link (bg.wn itself is about to be deleted). - Xbspiro (talk) 19:49, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
