Talk:Deadly flash flooding hits northwestern Turkey

Review of revision 872905 [Failed]

Revision 872905 of this article has been reviewed by Computerjoe (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Plenty of this seems plagiarised from the BBC article. The opening was effectively identical. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Sort out the copyright violation. 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 872905 of this article has been reviewed by Computerjoe (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Plenty of this seems plagiarised from the BBC article. The opening was effectively identical. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Sort out the copyright violation. 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 copyvio issues have still not been fully addressed, even after this edit. The first sentence of the second paragraph has been copied wholesale from the BBC source. Tempodivalse [talk] 17:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Why do we required old stories? If the reason is only archieving. Then I dont have any problem. Go ahead.--110.37.17.109 (talk) 14:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Review of revision 880180 [Failed]

Revision 880180 of this article has been reviewed by Tristan Thomas (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See comments Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: First sentence of BBC article is still almost identical to the second sentence of this. If you can sort this then the other factors are fine. PS. I haven't checked the rest of the article for Copyvio. 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 880180 of this article has been reviewed by Tristan Thomas (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See comments Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: First sentence of BBC article is still almost identical to the second sentence of this. If you can sort this then the other factors are fine. PS. I haven't checked the rest of the article for Copyvio. 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 880563 [Passed]

Revision 880563 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Finally passed review. No copyvio. 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 880563 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Finally passed review. No copyvio. 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.