Talk:Carter: US "likely behind" Venezuela coup

Review of revision 886099 [Passed]

Revision 886099 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This required a fair amount of copyedit prior to review and publication. The allegation that Chávez regained power after mass protests/demonstrations is not supported by either source - thus removed. There are section in this that are concerningly close to copyright violation, i.e. the same sentence structure from elsewhere with nouns or adjectives substituted. 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 886099 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:09, 23 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This required a fair amount of copyedit prior to review and publication. The allegation that Chávez regained power after mass protests/demonstrations is not supported by either source - thus removed. There are section in this that are concerningly close to copyright violation, i.e. the same sentence structure from elsewhere with nouns or adjectives substituted. 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.

Sourcing wikipedia?

I added "During the coup only the U.S and Chile recognised the pro US Pedro Carmona as interim president. " which is straight from wikipedia but it was removed as unsourced, what is the policy on sourcing stuff from wikipedia do I need to link to the wikipedia source or just the wikipage. --86.15.153.179 (talk) 13:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

The same as anyone should have with Wikipeda - it is not a reliable source. You should use the sources it cites.

The problem is, it would be possible to check you sourced details from Wikipedia in good faith, but to pass the change as reasonably reviewed someone on Wikinews would have to verify the sources for the added details on the Wikipedia article.

Most of the regular Wikinews contributors are well aware of some horrible failings on the part of the mainstream press where they've looked no further than Wikipedia. There is a very strong drive to avoid that same mistake and, there should be, a better understanding of how a wiki works leading to less such errors. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)