Talk:Besieged Syrian city of Deir Ezzour suffers multi-day attack

Review of revision 4215969 [Not ready]

Revision 4215969 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Iffy. See below. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Regarding copyright: on a preliminary check I found a number of passages copied from source, indicating material was copied and then modified. Don't do that. See WN:PILLARS#own and WN:Plagiarism. I might have considered trying to redress the problems myself during review, but have doubts about whether the problem would have been too big for me to resolve within my purview as an independent reviewer; in any case, it oughtn't have happened to start with with. It looks as if events outpaced this article on Sunday, with significant further developments in the story. 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 4215969 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Iffy. See below. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Regarding copyright: on a preliminary check I found a number of passages copied from source, indicating material was copied and then modified. Don't do that. See WN:PILLARS#own and WN:Plagiarism. I might have considered trying to redress the problems myself during review, but have doubts about whether the problem would have been too big for me to resolve within my purview as an independent reviewer; in any case, it oughtn't have happened to start with with. It looks as if events outpaced this article on Sunday, with significant further developments in the story. 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 4216542 [Passed]

Revision 4216542 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Don't use NYT as a source for Wikinews; it's paywalled. For the same reason, be very leery of The Australian and The Wall Street Journal. The bit left unverified after I'd been through all the sources I could access (i.e., excluding NYT) was the UN treating airdrops as a last resort because they're difficult and expensive. 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 4216542 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Don't use NYT as a source for Wikinews; it's paywalled. For the same reason, be very leery of The Australian and The Wall Street Journal. The bit left unverified after I'd been through all the sources I could access (i.e., excluding NYT) was the UN treating airdrops as a last resort because they're difficult and expensive. 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.