Talk:Texas authorities announce manhunt after alleged murderer's ankle monitor found in fire
Add topicPre-review as part of request for reviewership
[edit]Hi there. I've been asked to perform peer pre-review as part of my request for reviewer status.
Status: Recommend publish; Updated 02:01, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Version evaluated: 4855851
- Copyright:
Passed - Newsworthiness: Passed
- Verifiability:
Not ready: Pass; I removed content not supported by sources. - NPOV: Passed
- Style: Not ready: The English is choppy. I see several sentence fragments, run-on sentences, redundant sentences, and other places where the words seem cut up.
Notes for author(s):
Required issues: The article should say when the manhunt began or was announced. I see that the sources do contain this information. All the English in the article should be correct and intelligible, and right now it isn't. This article is a good choice for collaboration in this respect. Preferred/would-be-nice issues: Wikinews prefers active voice to passive. Instead of saying there was a manhunt, if possible, say who was looking for him. Instead of saying "Officials say this," if possible, say which officials or even include a quote. In general, it would be nice to have a quote from someone involved in the case. Regarding NPOV, the article's general tone is solid, but one quote from law enforcement and another quote from McEuen's lawyer or family would make it even more balanced.
Notes for reviewer:
No notes provided for reviewer
Updated notes:
I made improvements to the article using only the two sources provided by the drafter(s). Specifically, I fixed the English and removed anything unsupported.
This is a pre-review only and is not part of the official review process. A pre-review is meant to help the author or authors improve the article and increase the likelihood of it passing a formal review. This pre-review was not done by a reviewer and represents a recommendation that can be heeded or ignored.
And since I'm not a reviewer at the moment and therefore cannot be disqualified... **krakknuckle** Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- @Darkfrog24 I think the style is ok! Md Mobashir Hossain (talk) 10:32, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
- You mean you think it is okay now or you think it was already okay before I changed it? Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:17, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
Review of revision 4855988 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 4855988 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Reworded lede for clarity and flow; formatted time per WN:Style; restored original quote with attribution; corrected spelling and punctuation, including possessive form and downcased bracketed word; added publication dates and authors to sources. See the edit history for exact changes. 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 4855988 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:20, 8 May 2025 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Reworded lede for clarity and flow; formatted time per WN:Style; restored original quote with attribution; corrected spelling and punctuation, including possessive form and downcased bracketed word; added publication dates and authors to sources. See the edit history for exact changes. 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. |
Did not approve
[edit]I could not verify your changes
Source does not have last name "Philips", for example.
Undid it.
If you would like to re-add, please clarify source.