Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I see that it is meant to be stopped today. However, since there are so few articles being published, I was thinking if it could have a slight extension, since some of the articles on the front page are over a week old. Posted at 18:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC) (by Qwerty number1 (talk))
We don't judge an individual article's freshness based on the overall situation on the project. Though of course I'm hoping I can review this now. --Pi zero (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)Reply
The core of the first sentence was two phrases each of which was substantially copied from source (and "scuffed up", i.e., some superficial word replacements, like synonyms, tense change, etc). There's some (very compact) advice at WN:PILLARS#own; you want a completely structurally different way of saying things, and especially to avoid distinctive turns of phrase. There's also discussion at WN:Plagiary.
The cause of the evacuation, besides being partly a phrase too-close-to-source, needs a touch of attribution. The whole situation feels rather fog-of-war-ish to me; I'm not even sure quite how far to believe the Czech foreign ministry's comment; so I settled for "reportedly".
The second sentence of the lede, as submitted, is somewhat ambiguous if the reader doesn't happen to know Jet2 is an airline. (There's a wikilink for Jet2, but a news article should be self-contained; wikilinks are for additional information, not needed supplemental information.) If one mistook Jet2 for a model of aircraft rather than an airline, one might even wonder if "from Manchester" refers to airplane manufacture. So a clearer way of saying that was wanted.
There were other passages close-copied from source. Develop a news-writing style that doesn't involve copying and then modifying.
This all adds up to more than a reviewer should ordinarily do to a lede/article (our distributed-community model can't tolerate the sort of wholesale rewriting that newspaper editors sometimes do to their reporters' articles). I'm stretching the point for a newcome reporter, because how else can newcomers learn and become experienced Wikinewsies; it's an investment in the future. (I can't keep it up, though.)
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.
The core of the first sentence was two phrases each of which was substantially copied from source (and "scuffed up", i.e., some superficial word replacements, like synonyms, tense change, etc). There's some (very compact) advice at WN:PILLARS#own; you want a completely structurally different way of saying things, and especially to avoid distinctive turns of phrase. There's also discussion at WN:Plagiary.
The cause of the evacuation, besides being partly a phrase too-close-to-source, needs a touch of attribution. The whole situation feels rather fog-of-war-ish to me; I'm not even sure quite how far to believe the Czech foreign ministry's comment; so I settled for "reportedly".
The second sentence of the lede, as submitted, is somewhat ambiguous if the reader doesn't happen to know Jet2 is an airline. (There's a wikilink for Jet2, but a news article should be self-contained; wikilinks are for additional information, not needed supplemental information.) If one mistook Jet2 for a model of aircraft rather than an airline, one might even wonder if "from Manchester" refers to airplane manufacture. So a clearer way of saying that was wanted.
There were other passages close-copied from source. Develop a news-writing style that doesn't involve copying and then modifying.
This all adds up to more than a reviewer should ordinarily do to a lede/article (our distributed-community model can't tolerate the sort of wholesale rewriting that newspaper editors sometimes do to their reporters' articles). I'm stretching the point for a newcome reporter, because how else can newcomers learn and become experienced Wikinewsies; it's an investment in the future. (I can't keep it up, though.)
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.
