There were several passages too close to source. Do not copy passages and "scuff them up", as this does not avoid accusations of plagiary. See WN:PILLARS#own.
There were some problems in fact-check, things I didn't see in the sources; some of these may have been inadvertent consequences of phrasing, like implying that passengers received minor injuries as a result of the evacuation (which I, at least, didn't see suggested by the sources), or that the reason for the shutdown was the investigation (which I also didn't see).
I added attribution on a couple of points. Good synthesis should make clear where stuff came from; note the sources were full of attribution, this according to these authorities, that according to those authorities, and so on.
I realize time pressures make contribution to Wikinews difficult, but it's really unfortunate that these stories are often getting submitted with only a few ticks of the clock left in the discretionary freshness period (that is, some reviewers might have counted this already stale, and those who didn't would certainly count it stale in another few hours).
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.
There were several passages too close to source. Do not copy passages and "scuff them up", as this does not avoid accusations of plagiary. See WN:PILLARS#own.
There were some problems in fact-check, things I didn't see in the sources; some of these may have been inadvertent consequences of phrasing, like implying that passengers received minor injuries as a result of the evacuation (which I, at least, didn't see suggested by the sources), or that the reason for the shutdown was the investigation (which I also didn't see).
I added attribution on a couple of points. Good synthesis should make clear where stuff came from; note the sources were full of attribution, this according to these authorities, that according to those authorities, and so on.
I realize time pressures make contribution to Wikinews difficult, but it's really unfortunate that these stories are often getting submitted with only a few ticks of the clock left in the discretionary freshness period (that is, some reviewers might have counted this already stale, and those who didn't would certainly count it stale in another few hours).
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.
Done and awaiting confirmation by a reviewer, thanks. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 19:59, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
