Talk:First successful womb transplant recipient passes six-week pregnancy mark

Review of revision 1889755 [Not ready]

Revision 1889755 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 10:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: First off, the style is much better. Getting the inline links formatted, having a side box, thinking about and adding categories is also very much appreciated. That said, there are a few issues: The first paragraph does not answer the when question. When did this event happen? Only one of the sources is from the past 48 hours. The two other sources are much older. For synthesis articles, we tend to require two sources to confirm that main point of the article. We do not have a second article which does that here. 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 1889755 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 10:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: First off, the style is much better. Getting the inline links formatted, having a side box, thinking about and adding categories is also very much appreciated. That said, there are a few issues: The first paragraph does not answer the when question. When did this event happen? Only one of the sources is from the past 48 hours. The two other sources are much older. For synthesis articles, we tend to require two sources to confirm that main point of the article. We do not have a second article which does that here. 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.

What do you think LauraHale? Closer to getting published? Keen to hear your thoughts. Thanks. MountaineerUOW (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1890037 [Not ready]

Revision 1890037 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I'm finding long passages copied from the sources. I attempted repairs on a few, but have concluded the problem is too extensive for a reviewer to repair without disqualifying themself from review. What you're trying for with synthesis is to draw information from the sources, and present it —accurately— in your own original way. Your overall organization (no problem here, it seems), your sentence and phrase structure. Also don't imitate peculiar turns of phrase, idioms, word choices. After you've done all those things, a rule of thumb says you shouldn't have more than three consecutive words identical to a source, with obvious exceptions like titles. Note that what doesn't work is to start with source passages and "scuff them up" by changing a few words here and there. As an example of the problem (the longest I noticed, but I don't know what may lurk in passages I didn't get to in my nonlinear inspection), the Gothenburg passage has a nineteen word sequence verbatim from source, practically the entire source sentence. This story is already well into the usually discretionary period for staleness, in its third day (the statement having been on Monday). It's hard to imagine a repair and a review before Friday UTC (less than five hours from now; you'd be lucky to get a reviewer who could put in a full review in that time if the article were already publish-ready now). So likely some sort of new development in the story would be needed to refresh it. 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 1890037 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:18, 1 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I'm finding long passages copied from the sources. I attempted repairs on a few, but have concluded the problem is too extensive for a reviewer to repair without disqualifying themself from review. What you're trying for with synthesis is to draw information from the sources, and present it —accurately— in your own original way. Your overall organization (no problem here, it seems), your sentence and phrase structure. Also don't imitate peculiar turns of phrase, idioms, word choices. After you've done all those things, a rule of thumb says you shouldn't have more than three consecutive words identical to a source, with obvious exceptions like titles. Note that what doesn't work is to start with source passages and "scuff them up" by changing a few words here and there. As an example of the problem (the longest I noticed, but I don't know what may lurk in passages I didn't get to in my nonlinear inspection), the Gothenburg passage has a nineteen word sequence verbatim from source, practically the entire source sentence. This story is already well into the usually discretionary period for staleness, in its third day (the statement having been on Monday). It's hard to imagine a repair and a review before Friday UTC (less than five hours from now; you'd be lucky to get a reviewer who could put in a full review in that time if the article were already publish-ready now). So likely some sort of new development in the story would be needed to refresh it. 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.

Hm. I can't count, I see — it's now the second day and about to be the third. --Pi zero (talk) 21:23, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Pi Zero - You had me confused for a second too, so I'm glad of the extra time to see this article through. I've tried some re-working of the text...what do you think? I look forward to hearing your feedback and making the appropriate changes to see this published. THank you. MountaineerUOW (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

What I can immediately see is that you've done a bunch of the right sorts of things one would do to address the kind of distance-from-source problem I observed. My guess is, there will be some bits that'll need adjustment for verification, now; I'm hoping it'll be within what a reviewer can repair without disqualifying themself (generally, changes that involve trimming stuff are relatively safe, while changes that involve adding anything would have to be much more limited).

The time difference between there and here is vicious — LauraHale is in Australia atm, but I'm pretty close to the opposite side of the globe. I'm going to need a night's sleep before I can do another full review, which probably means the earliest I could do another review on this would be sometime in the evening there... if I'm not prevented by stuff irl. We'll see how things work out. --Pi zero (talk) 01:06, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1890936 [Passed]

Revision 1890936 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I still had to repair a bunch of distance-from-source problems, and remove a bunch of stuff I couldn't find in the sources. I wouldn't carry reviewer's prerogative this far on a regular basis but, in this particular case, had in mind that you've been making a real effort here and demonstration might well be helpful. Your objective, of course, is to write articles that on their first submission already have scarcely any flaws — review is actually still a fairly big job on a substantially flawless article, but far less so than on an article with significant problems, as problems take a lot of time and energy to diagnose and decide how to cope with. 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 1890936 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I still had to repair a bunch of distance-from-source problems, and remove a bunch of stuff I couldn't find in the sources. I wouldn't carry reviewer's prerogative this far on a regular basis but, in this particular case, had in mind that you've been making a real effort here and demonstration might well be helpful. Your objective, of course, is to write articles that on their first submission already have scarcely any flaws — review is actually still a fairly big job on a substantially flawless article, but far less so than on an article with significant problems, as problems take a lot of time and energy to diagnose and decide how to cope with. 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.

Thank you Pi zero, I appreciate the effort. I understand the style you're going for a bit better now. Can I ask what you mean by 'distance from source' problems you mentioned I had? Just so I know for next time. Thanks. MountaineerUOW (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

We use the phrase "distance from source" to mean that something had too closely resembled a source and was made more distant from the source. Technically, of the five review criteria it goes under "copyright", which really encompasses both copyright proper and also plagiarism (but I tend not to be heavy-handed with the use of the term plagiarism, which is apt to provoke a pretty strong response from people — granting that occasionally its shock value can be useful for getting someone's attention :-). --Pi zero (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment

doctors fertilised one of these eggs... So one of them is the baby's father? --Elitre (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I believe it's understood that the the doctors fertilized the egg in vitro and not through the normal means, though feel free to edit the article yourself to clarify the point if you feel it necessary. —Mikemoral♪♫ 20:22, 2 May 2013 (UTC)