I found several passages that were evidently passages from the sources "scuffed up", which does not work. The sentence about Gallagher is close to its origin in the Canberra Times, most of the sentence about Forster to its in ABC News. (I note the sentence about Barr ends less-than-ideally with a phrase based on "faced by" (struggles faced by gay and lesbian &c, vs. difficulties faced by same-sex couples.) I felt the changes needed were rather extensive for a reviewer given the length of the article and other concerns (below).
Most of the last paragraph I was unable to verify from the sources. The first sentence I cut down a lot to match what I could verify, though I might have left it in place had I realized about the rest of the paragraph. I considered cutting the entire paragraph, and might have been tempted had there been no other major difficulty with the article, but I'd not have liked to even then, and given the article length and other difficulties I've left it for the reporter to decide how to proceed.
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.
I found several passages that were evidently passages from the sources "scuffed up", which does not work. The sentence about Gallagher is close to its origin in the Canberra Times, most of the sentence about Forster to its in ABC News. (I note the sentence about Barr ends less-than-ideally with a phrase based on "faced by" (struggles faced by gay and lesbian &c, vs. difficulties faced by same-sex couples.) I felt the changes needed were rather extensive for a reviewer given the length of the article and other concerns (below).
Most of the last paragraph I was unable to verify from the sources. The first sentence I cut down a lot to match what I could verify, though I might have left it in place had I realized about the rest of the paragraph. I considered cutting the entire paragraph, and might have been tempted had there been no other major difficulty with the article, but I'd not have liked to even then, and given the article length and other difficulties I've left it for the reporter to decide how to proceed.
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.
I have re-worded these parts.
Cutting the final paragraph would be unwise, because it is actually the most important one for Australian readers, and has not been properly reported in the mainstream media. The first sentence is covered by the fourth source, which details the legislation and who introduced it. The third and fourth sentences are in the fifth source (p. 28 and pp. 42-43) The third sentence is pretty well known, but I have added an eighth source which talks about the Liberals not commanding a majority in the Senate.
Yeah, it did seem the final paragraph didn't want to come out. Thanks for the where-to-find on the last paragraph; I hope to take another shot at it now, and we'll see if I can find my way through it. --Pi zero (talk) 14:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
The difficulties in verifying the last paragraph demonstrate, among other things, the value of providing supplementary information for the reviewer when presenting a massive body of source material. I'd figured that source was meant to support that paragraph, but keyword searches in the source failed to turn up an obviously right passage — in fact, the intended passage was turned up by the string search, but I evidently failed to recognize it as the right passage without a strong hint.
I'd correctly identified the Bill 2011 source as the place to verify the first sentence of that paragraph, but, owing perhaps to my lack of prior familiarity with the legislative inner workins of Australian government, I was unable to find more in it than what I'd left after cutting down the sentence on the first review.
For the powers under s51(xxi), the named page does say that if one has enough prior knowledge of the material... which alas I don't; it's well to have provided that source, but to be sure I was understanding it correctly I found it convenient to consult the text of the Australian constitution, which our sister project Wikisource provides. I added that to the article as a Sister link.
The eighth source is actually, on examination, a blog. For some purposes it might not be trust-worthy; but for this purpose? Corroborating the stated common-knowledge of the reporter? Not a problem. See also w:User:Tom Morris/The Reliability Delusion.
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 difficulties in verifying the last paragraph demonstrate, among other things, the value of providing supplementary information for the reviewer when presenting a massive body of source material. I'd figured that source was meant to support that paragraph, but keyword searches in the source failed to turn up an obviously right passage — in fact, the intended passage was turned up by the string search, but I evidently failed to recognize it as the right passage without a strong hint.
I'd correctly identified the Bill 2011 source as the place to verify the first sentence of that paragraph, but, owing perhaps to my lack of prior familiarity with the legislative inner workins of Australian government, I was unable to find more in it than what I'd left after cutting down the sentence on the first review.
For the powers under s51(xxi), the named page does say that if one has enough prior knowledge of the material... which alas I don't; it's well to have provided that source, but to be sure I was understanding it correctly I found it convenient to consult the text of the Australian constitution, which our sister project Wikisource provides. I added that to the article as a Sister link.
The eighth source is actually, on examination, a blog. For some purposes it might not be trust-worthy; but for this purpose? Corroborating the stated common-knowledge of the reporter? Not a problem. See also w:User:Tom Morris/The Reliability Delusion.
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.
Thanks for your review. I've never written a Wikinews article of this sort before. Next time I will post supplementary information on the collaboration page so the reviewer can find the sources quickly. I am perhaps overly-familiar with the inner workings of the Federal government, having worked for it for over ten years. Adding the Constitution link is a splendid idea. Our constitution is a sort of contract between the states and the Federal government, and Section 51 is a long list of powers of the Federal government. Two other sections are important here: Sections 122 and 125. Next time you want to point to the value of Wikinews, you could consider this article, which has some facts right where some mainstream media organisations have got them muddled or wrong. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply
