Talk:NASA announces water on Mars

Review of revision 3853697 [Not ready]

Revision 3853697 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: NYT is paywalled. We have a policy against pay-to-read sources. This is below minimal length (at least twice this much text, likely) and we ask for at least three paragraphs, of which the first should be a lede, a short-and-to-the-point paragraph summarizing the focal even by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and H about the focal event, and in the process establishing newsworthiness. As the item is written here, it's not clear how this NASA announcement differs from past ones. Btw, date format on sources should use house style, per Wikinews:Style guide#Dates. 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 3853697 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: NYT is paywalled. We have a policy against pay-to-read sources. This is below minimal length (at least twice this much text, likely) and we ask for at least three paragraphs, of which the first should be a lede, a short-and-to-the-point paragraph summarizing the focal even by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and H about the focal event, and in the process establishing newsworthiness. As the item is written here, it's not clear how this NASA announcement differs from past ones. Btw, date format on sources should use house style, per Wikinews:Style guide#Dates. 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 3856275 [Not ready]

Revision 3856275 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I'm finding long passages copied from source, here; both purely quotation-free passages, and large passages including directly quotes together with all the context. This is unacceptable, as is copying and then superficially "scuffing up". See the advice at WN:PILLARS#own. 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 3856275 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:06, 29 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I'm finding long passages copied from source, here; both purely quotation-free passages, and large passages including directly quotes together with all the context. This is unacceptable, as is copying and then superficially "scuffing up". See the advice at WN:PILLARS#own. 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 3859288 [Not ready]

Revision 3859288 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Efforts have been made by another writer (thank you) to address the copyvio problem. Once such a problem gets into an article, though, it can be quite difficulty to root out. Here's a list of problem passages I spotted at this review: paragraph 1: "are believed [...] flowing water" (with an omitted adjective) paragraph 2: the whole paragraph (verbatim) paragraph 3: "landing [...] where" (with one substituted synonym), "thought [...] ago" (some superficial scuffing up) paragraph 4: the whole paragraph (illustrates what is meant by "scuffing up"; this is still the same paragraph despite scuffing up at five different points) paragraph 5: the whole paragraph (verbatim) See WN:PILLARS#own. There was also a draft for a guideline started at Wikinews:Plagiarism. 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 3859288 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Efforts have been made by another writer (thank you) to address the copyvio problem. Once such a problem gets into an article, though, it can be quite difficulty to root out. Here's a list of problem passages I spotted at this review: paragraph 1: "are believed [...] flowing water" (with an omitted adjective) paragraph 2: the whole paragraph (verbatim) paragraph 3: "landing [...] where" (with one substituted synonym), "thought [...] ago" (some superficial scuffing up) paragraph 4: the whole paragraph (illustrates what is meant by "scuffing up"; this is still the same paragraph despite scuffing up at five different points) paragraph 5: the whole paragraph (verbatim) See WN:PILLARS#own. There was also a draft for a guideline started at Wikinews:Plagiarism. 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 3863460 [Passed]

Revision 3863460 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:26, 1 October 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 3863460 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:26, 1 October 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.