Talk:Australian Opposition Leader pledges to save Great Barrier Reef

Review of revision 4219795 [Not ready]

Revision 4219795 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:56, 30 May 2016 (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: Do not copy source passages. Do not copy source passages and "scuff them up", which does not avoid accusations of plagiarism. My preliminary ccheck found a couple of classic examples of copy-and-scuff-up here; the entire last paragraph was one, and most of the second half of the (single-sentence) second paragraph was another. At that point I stopped looking. Find and fix all such problems, completely rewriting as necessary, before resubmitting. Avoid any writing technique that involves starting with source matter and modifying it. See WN:PILLARS#own and WN: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 4219795 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:56, 30 May 2016 (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: Do not copy source passages. Do not copy source passages and "scuff them up", which does not avoid accusations of plagiarism. My preliminary ccheck found a couple of classic examples of copy-and-scuff-up here; the entire last paragraph was one, and most of the second half of the (single-sentence) second paragraph was another. At that point I stopped looking. Find and fix all such problems, completely rewriting as necessary, before resubmitting. Avoid any writing technique that involves starting with source matter and modifying it. See WN:PILLARS#own and WN: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.

Is there any more advice you can give me on the 'scuffing,' issue? Any copyright in this article was unintentional and i'm struggling to see how to get across most of the points discussed in a different way. As a user who is new to wiki news, some advice on how to best get an article published would be greatly appreciated. Thanks CourtneyBerthaly (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@CourtneyBerthaly: A simple way of avoiding plagiarism or scuffing up is: find out information from the sources, and say it in your own words. That's the thing. saying it in our words would solve the copyvio problem.
acagastya ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🚀 🔬 👟 🎬 🎼 📰 15:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@CourtneyBerthaly: Fwiw, I understand the difficulty; there's this feeling of "but how can I say that differently?". For me, an important experience was reviewing really well-done synthesis writing (and how does one share that experience with newcomers? a difficult challenge); each synthesis sentence was apt to contain bits of information from widely distant parts of the sources (often, from multiple sources), while information from any given source sentence was likely to be scattered widely in little bits all over the synthesis article. Somehow it made it all look easy, and the feeling of "but how can I say that differently" just sort of evaporated. Acagastya has a point, too, about the information: if you start by understanding the material, and then explain it to news readers, you've lost the source phrasing before you start writing — though again, it's hard to internalize that until you've actually experienced it to know how it feels. --Pi zero (talk)

Review of revision 4219920 [Not ready]

Revision 4219920 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:15, 30 May 2016 (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 reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I addressed some distance-from-source problems. The last paragraph remains a problem in that regard, and parts of the beginning and end of the third paragraph. Regarding verification: I don't see the "All of this is at risk" quote in the sources. It's not clear to me the relationship between water temperature/El Niño/climate change and coral bleaching can be attributed to ARC. Do the sources simply take this as known fact? Of the fourth paragraph, I verified only the first sentence (seven percent; that's a bit I distanced). Didn't see any mention of 1998 in the sources, and didn't go further into the paragraph after that. That last paragraph is a problem for verification (too), as it talks about what will happen on Monday, and if I'm not mistaken it's actually Tuesday now in Australia. (Setting aside that our style guide warns never to say definitively something will happen since the future cannot be known with certainty.) Is it A$500 or A$400? It seemed sources weren't agreeing on the point. 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 4219920 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:15, 30 May 2016 (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 reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I addressed some distance-from-source problems. The last paragraph remains a problem in that regard, and parts of the beginning and end of the third paragraph. Regarding verification: I don't see the "All of this is at risk" quote in the sources. It's not clear to me the relationship between water temperature/El Niño/climate change and coral bleaching can be attributed to ARC. Do the sources simply take this as known fact? Of the fourth paragraph, I verified only the first sentence (seven percent; that's a bit I distanced). Didn't see any mention of 1998 in the sources, and didn't go further into the paragraph after that. That last paragraph is a problem for verification (too), as it talks about what will happen on Monday, and if I'm not mistaken it's actually Tuesday now in Australia. (Setting aside that our style guide warns never to say definitively something will happen since the future cannot be known with certainty.) Is it A$500 or A$400? It seemed sources weren't agreeing on the point. 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.

The All of the risk quote has been sourced, 1998 has been sourced, Multiple sources say the amount is $500 million, It is a known fact that coral bleaching is linked to climate change and higher than average sea temperatures as a result of El Nino events CourtneyBerthaly (talk) 23:41, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

My concern wasn't with whether the link is a known fact, but whether ARC revealed it (which is what the sentence says). I'll see what I can do with the current state of things. --Pi zero (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4220046 [Passed]

Revision 4220046 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:32, 31 May 2016 (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 4220046 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:32, 31 May 2016 (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.

Thank you for your feedback and patience, It is very much appreciated CourtneyBerthaly (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)