Talk:Britain thinks Africans are barbaric, claims South African President

Review of revision 971800 [Passed]

Revision 971800 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:32, 5 March 2010 (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 971800 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:32, 5 March 2010 (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.

Copyvio?

This whole article seems to be a very thin rewrite of the Telegraph story; compare, for example, these two passages:

The couple are today due to be welcomed by the Queen at Horse Guards Parade before being taken by carriage to Buckingham Palace. This evening they will enjoy a state banquet at the palace.

As a member of the Zulu tribe Mr Zuma is permitted to take multiple wives, but was last month forced to make a public apology after admitting he fathered a love child following an affair with the daughter of a friend.

---

The Queen will welcome them at the Horse Guards Parade and take them to Buckingham Palace thereafter. A state banquet will also be held in his honor at the palace.

Zuma, a member of the Zulu tribe, is allowed to have multiple spouses, however he was compelled to make a public apology following a love child with the daughter of a friend.

The text is very close, the structure of the way it's ordered is even closer - I haven't had a chance to do a full comparison, but this is really too close to the original for my liking. Shimgray (talk) 16:22, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It is close, and it certainly is a rewrite. But every time I bring this up as a problem I get slapped, so I don't bother anymore:P. When a lawsuit gets filed against us forcing us to take down half our articles as "too close to the source material to constitute a real rewrite" then they'll listen, but not before. Gopher65_talk 20:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)