Talk:Slovenians reject referendum to recognize same-sex marriage

Review of revision 4074836 [Not ready]

Revision 4074836 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede should be a short, to-the-point paragraph briefly summarizing the focal event by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and H about it; in the process it should establish newsworthiness (show the focus is specific, relevant, and fresh). There should then be at least two further paragraphs (arranged in an inverted pyramid). Total length of the text should be equivalent to three medium-sized paragraphs (though it doesn't have to be evenly distributed between paragraphs); current text is perhaps a bit more than half that. 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 4074836 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede should be a short, to-the-point paragraph briefly summarizing the focal event by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and H about it; in the process it should establish newsworthiness (show the focus is specific, relevant, and fresh). There should then be at least two further paragraphs (arranged in an inverted pyramid). Total length of the text should be equivalent to three medium-sized paragraphs (though it doesn't have to be evenly distributed between paragraphs); current text is perhaps a bit more than half that. 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.

Suggestions?

I rewrote the whole article, but the ones you linked are mostly essays. "Style guide" is a guideline. Any more details that I should add? --George Ho (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: Those pages are explanations of what writers should be trying to do, and I'm providing links to them so you can benefit from their advice. I recommend taking them seriously. Don't take an adversarial approach to the reporter/reviewer relationship (I mention that because it occurs to me there are various situations on Wikipedia where comments would be taken adversarially, and would be laced with references to pages meant to justify the comments, rather than links meant to provide further explanation). Another page you may find helpful is WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing.

The first paragraph atm is background and analysis. Analysis isn't allowed under our neutrality policy, background doesn't belong in the first paragraph (see WN:inverted pyramid). The lede should be a short paragraph that succinctly answers lots of the five Ws and H in a few words.

The article atm is below minimal length (and some of what's here is, as mentioned, analysis). --Pi zero (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I added a couple short paragraphs. Helpful? --George Ho (talk) 08:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

@George Ho: It's looking better, yes. The phrase "and the recent referendum is an example" should be dropped, I think. And I'd judge it still a bit too short. But it's definitely improving. (Mind, so far I'm only judging it on superficial appearance; if there's a problem that would only be detected during source-check, I wouldn't know about that yet. Some first-time writers get tripped up on our copyright standards, for example. But everything learned on a first Wikinews article speeds later articles, which important, so you're already ahead of the game. :-)

When you believe it's ready, remember to resubmit it for review; it won't get reviewed if it isn't submitted, and it can only be published by passing review while it's still fresh. --Pi zero (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 4076738 [Not ready]

Revision 4076738 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Third paragraph second sentence, about law-not-enforced, is misleading; it gives no indication of why the law wasn't enforced, and seemingly suggests the referendum was held because the law wasn't enforced. As noted above, the article is still below minimal length. There's no shortage of source material in these sources, for an expansion of several sentences. 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 4076738 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Third paragraph second sentence, about law-not-enforced, is misleading; it gives no indication of why the law wasn't enforced, and seemingly suggests the referendum was held because the law wasn't enforced. As noted above, the article is still below minimal length. There's no shortage of source material in these sources, for an expansion of several sentences. 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.

Review of revision 4077323 [Passed]

Revision 4077323 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4077323 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.