The text of this article is much too close to the sources. You need to express things in an original way — all the facts are from the sources, but the presentation of those facts is yours. The information should be differently organized than in the sources, the sentences and phrases should be differently structured than material in the sources, and peculiar word choices from the sources should not be imitated. Do not cut-and-past passages from the sources; also, do not copy source passages and then just 'scuff them up' a bit by things like changing verb tenses or substituting synonyms (the "synonym" technique is especially risky, because when you start working hard to come up with synonyms, you often end up changing the meaning).
This is below minimal length for a standalone article on English Wikinews; it should be at least three paragraphs, and total amount of text should be at least about twice as much as you have here. Keep in mind, there's a lot of redundancy here, which should be eliminated, so the amount of content would be even more than twice as much. See WN:lede, WN:inverted pyramid.
A lesser point (though I or you or somebody still needs to fix it): The headline needs to be much more specific. It also needs to be a sentence, preferable in active voice (rather than a noun phrase, as it is now).
Note that, although some third party could certainly help with the article, I as reviewer am quite limited in what I can do, because our system calls for independent review: in order to review the article I have to be sufficiently uninvolved with writing it.
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 text of this article is much too close to the sources. You need to express things in an original way — all the facts are from the sources, but the presentation of those facts is yours. The information should be differently organized than in the sources, the sentences and phrases should be differently structured than material in the sources, and peculiar word choices from the sources should not be imitated. Do not cut-and-past passages from the sources; also, do not copy source passages and then just 'scuff them up' a bit by things like changing verb tenses or substituting synonyms (the "synonym" technique is especially risky, because when you start working hard to come up with synonyms, you often end up changing the meaning).
This is below minimal length for a standalone article on English Wikinews; it should be at least three paragraphs, and total amount of text should be at least about twice as much as you have here. Keep in mind, there's a lot of redundancy here, which should be eliminated, so the amount of content would be even more than twice as much. See WN:lede, WN:inverted pyramid.
A lesser point (though I or you or somebody still needs to fix it): The headline needs to be much more specific. It also needs to be a sentence, preferable in active voice (rather than a noun phrase, as it is now).
Note that, although some third party could certainly help with the article, I as reviewer am quite limited in what I can do, because our system calls for independent review: in order to review the article I have to be sufficiently uninvolved with writing it.
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.
Thank you for review. I have rewritten the whole article including all points you have mentioned. Although I couldn't understand how to rename article. I guess it be done via REDIRECT instruction, but I am not sure.
There were some passages needing greater distance from source (i.e., needed to be less similar). Some bits weren't neutral, and some I couldn't find in the sources. Note, the second victim was not necessarily in the road, in fact one source says authorities placed the second victim in the building (but I reckoned it would be beyond my purview as independent reviewer to add something like that). I broke my edits down in order to specifically justify each; see the detailed history of edits during review. Most of what I did (excluding some minor copyedits, infobox, and insertion of a pagaraph-break) is visible in this diff.
Length is minimal, more so after some removals for non-verification during source-check.
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.
There were some passages needing greater distance from source (i.e., needed to be less similar). Some bits weren't neutral, and some I couldn't find in the sources. Note, the second victim was not necessarily in the road, in fact one source says authorities placed the second victim in the building (but I reckoned it would be beyond my purview as independent reviewer to add something like that). I broke my edits down in order to specifically justify each; see the detailed history of edits during review. Most of what I did (excluding some minor copyedits, infobox, and insertion of a pagaraph-break) is visible in this diff.
Length is minimal, more so after some removals for non-verification during source-check.
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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Has anyone picked up on that someone's made an error with a template at the start of the article? I don't have the WikiNews knowledge on how to fix it. 82.33.215.26 (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)Reply
