Talk:G20 fails to agree on joint statement on Russian invasion of Ukraine
Review of revision 4711764 [Not ready]
edit  |
Revision 4711764 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: @CSJJ104: All verification is done and that looks good. I do notice you often use repetitive or unnecessary words (remember not to use "that"), like "China and Russia refused to sign an agreement condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. All other members agreed to sign." This can be condensed to "All members but Russia and China agreed to sign an agreement condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine." Not as big of a problem, but something to keep in mind. 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 4711764 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: @CSJJ104: All verification is done and that looks good. I do notice you often use repetitive or unnecessary words (remember not to use "that"), like "China and Russia refused to sign an agreement condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine. All other members agreed to sign." This can be condensed to "All members but Russia and China agreed to sign an agreement condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine." Not as big of a problem, but something to keep in mind. 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. |
- @Heavy Water: and @CSJJ104:, Well I reduced some of copyvio, but it seems most of copyvio were the quotations. What shall be done in this case is to remove some which reflect less.--M:DRC (talk) 12:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, no, we want quotations. Those are not a copyright issue. But outside of quotes, too many of these sentences are very similar (often a word or two changed from source sentences). Also note Earwig only catches verbatim phrases. Heavy Water (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Heavy Water - I've made some changes to try and help with this, but it might help if you could give a couple of examples you noticed? Even if they have already been fixed it could help me find others. CSJJ104 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. "U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated the meeting produced no "deliverables" and was mostly organisational" is very similar to Reuters, the paragraph beginning with "Widespread support was shown for India's drive...", and "Countries including China, the largest bilateral creditor in the world...to aid debt alleviation," are the most problematic, I think. Heavy Water (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm hoping the issues have been successfully addressed, and resubmitting this for review. CSJJ104 (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sure. "U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen stated the meeting produced no "deliverables" and was mostly organisational" is very similar to Reuters, the paragraph beginning with "Widespread support was shown for India's drive...", and "Countries including China, the largest bilateral creditor in the world...to aid debt alleviation," are the most problematic, I think. Heavy Water (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- @Heavy Water - I've made some changes to try and help with this, but it might help if you could give a couple of examples you noticed? Even if they have already been fixed it could help me find others. CSJJ104 (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
- No, no, we want quotations. Those are not a copyright issue. But outside of quotes, too many of these sentences are very similar (often a word or two changed from source sentences). Also note Earwig only catches verbatim phrases. Heavy Water (talk) 13:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Review of revision 4712033 [Passed]
edit  |
Revision 4712033 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Some editing done for conciseness, distance, and WN:PYRAMID. @CSJJ104: Thanks for bearing with me, this was a long one. 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 4712033 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:16, 28 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Some editing done for conciseness, distance, and WN:PYRAMID. @CSJJ104: Thanks for bearing with me, this was a long one. 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. |
Review of revision 4712035 [Passed]
edit| |
Revision 4712035 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I don't know what happened, EzPR didn't publish. Trying again. 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 4712035 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I don't know what happened, EzPR didn't publish. Trying again. 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. |