Talk:Australian adaptive rowers prepare as Paralympics looms
Review of revision 1508592 [Not ready]
edit
Revision 1508592 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
Everything in an OR is sourced, just as everything in a synthesis article is sourced, except that the reporter's notes count as an additional source. There should be lots of reporter's notes; you should be aiming to provide more than we need to verify the article. But you've provided no reporter's notes at all; so the article is, in fact, entirely unsourced.
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 1508592 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:41, 24 May 2012 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
Everything in an OR is sourced, just as everything in a synthesis article is sourced, except that the reporter's notes count as an additional source. There should be lots of reporter's notes; you should be aiming to provide more than we need to verify the article. But you've provided no reporter's notes at all; so the article is, in fact, entirely unsourced.
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. |
- There are also style problems here. Right off hand, I observe that the first paragraph starts with some purple prose ("On the icy waters of..."); and the first paragraph is, well, chatty. The first paragraph of a news article, called the lede, should succinctly answer as many as possible of the basic questions about the focal news event of the article. That also means the lede makes the case for newsworthiness. Here newsworthiness will have to rely entirely on the OR aspect of the article, yet the first paragraph doesn't even mention that there is any OR involved; instead, it appears to describe an ongoing process (more like continental drift than like an earthquake). So verifiability isn't the only thing I could have not-ready'd the article for. --Pi zero (talk) 02:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I've modified the lede a bit, and the notes are here. Therefore I'm resubmitting. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:33, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Notes per request
editTim Collins (talk) 05:48, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
- I have requested file rotations for those that need it. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:32, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Review of revision 1510148 [Not ready]
edit
Revision 1510148 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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 1510148 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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. |
- Thanks, we are still learning about the Wikinews process. I've just wiki-linked "eight", since it would interrupt the flow a bit I think. I'm looking at the rest of the points now. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
- I think the concerns listed above have been sorted now. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, we are still learning about the Wikinews process. I've just wiki-linked "eight", since it would interrupt the flow a bit I think. I'm looking at the rest of the points now. JJ Harrison (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Review of revision 1513458 [Passed]
edit
Revision 1513458 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: There are two very good reasons why I perhaps shouldn't have reviewed this. I feel there are also commonsense reasons to overrule those, but I feel obliged to explain my actions:
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 1513458 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:23, 29 May 2012 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: There are two very good reasons why I perhaps shouldn't have reviewed this. I feel there are also commonsense reasons to overrule those, but I feel obliged to explain my actions:
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. The IP was me forgetting to log in. The IP didn't make any edits to the article content anyway. JJ Harrison (talk) 23:08, 29 May 2012 (UTC)