The lede has problems. It doesn't make clear specifically what has just happened. It also doesn't make clear when (as in, today, yesterday, or a day of the week), nor where (I think that's Germany). Keep in mind that the lede should stand on its own: it shouldn't require the headline to be read with it as a preface.
New York Times is behind a paywall; I can't access it from here. Don't use it as a source; Wikinews has an explicit policy prohibiting pay-to-read sources.
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 lede has problems. It doesn't make clear specifically what has just happened. It also doesn't make clear when (as in, today, yesterday, or a day of the week), nor where (I think that's Germany). Keep in mind that the lede should stand on its own: it shouldn't require the headline to be read with it as a preface.
New York Times is behind a paywall; I can't access it from here. Don't use it as a source; Wikinews has an explicit policy prohibiting pay-to-read sources.
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.
Do not copy passages from source. Do not copy them and then "scuff them up" by changing words here and there; that doesn't avoid accusations of plagiary. Find a completely different way of saying things. When there are only a few such passages, a reviewer might choose to just "fix" them, but really what a reviewer can do is not as good as what the reporter could (and should) have done in the first place, because a reviewer is trying to avoid getting too involved in the writing of the article (since if they get too involved they have to disqualify themselves from review). Here I readily found quite a few passages copied. (Note, btw, that "who was subjected to unknown medical experiments at Auschwitz" is not only copyvio, differing from HuffPo only by replacement of one adjective, but that one adjective also makes it inaccurate afaics since it seems pretty clear that what was done to her is known — the word in the source was "horrific".)
When I first started this review I wondered immediately about freshness, because the event being reported took place four calendar days ago. I decided, on closer inspection, to allow it if we could get it published on this review; although the timing is judged by when information "came to light" (i.e., public visibility) rahter than when particular sources were published, it does seem that information about this was slow coming out publicly, and the Times article on Saturday was some sort of landmark but that was only three days ago. It didn't seem necessary to struggle with whether any of the information in this article is more recently come-to-light than Saturday, since that's three days. Beyond Tuesday (which ends on Wikinews ten hours from now) one would need to think more carefully about when what was known.
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.
Do not copy passages from source. Do not copy them and then "scuff them up" by changing words here and there; that doesn't avoid accusations of plagiary. Find a completely different way of saying things. When there are only a few such passages, a reviewer might choose to just "fix" them, but really what a reviewer can do is not as good as what the reporter could (and should) have done in the first place, because a reviewer is trying to avoid getting too involved in the writing of the article (since if they get too involved they have to disqualify themselves from review). Here I readily found quite a few passages copied. (Note, btw, that "who was subjected to unknown medical experiments at Auschwitz" is not only copyvio, differing from HuffPo only by replacement of one adjective, but that one adjective also makes it inaccurate afaics since it seems pretty clear that what was done to her is known — the word in the source was "horrific".)
When I first started this review I wondered immediately about freshness, because the event being reported took place four calendar days ago. I decided, on closer inspection, to allow it if we could get it published on this review; although the timing is judged by when information "came to light" (i.e., public visibility) rahter than when particular sources were published, it does seem that information about this was slow coming out publicly, and the Times article on Saturday was some sort of landmark but that was only three days ago. It didn't seem necessary to struggle with whether any of the information in this article is more recently come-to-light than Saturday, since that's three days. Beyond Tuesday (which ends on Wikinews ten hours from now) one would need to think more carefully about when what was known.
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.
I've attempted to edit the piece due to copyright issues,
In relation to the newsworthiness of the piece, I added in new information (other comments from remaining survivors), however because this news is on-going, as is the trial, I believe that it is still newsworthy. If any more updates come to light I will attempt to edit the story on these new developments, like I have done previously, if the story sin't published before to keep the readers up to date with the newest information.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MaddicookUOW (talk • contribs) 10:08, 29 April 2015
The focal arrangement here isn't ideal; I could imagine a reviewer asking for a refocus, since the focus is six days old and the newer development is a bit loosely connected and several paragraphs down.
Still needed some copyright concerns addressed; since the reporter had made an effort and reduced the problem already, though, I saw no point in being stiff-necked about it.
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.
The focal arrangement here isn't ideal; I could imagine a reviewer asking for a refocus, since the focus is six days old and the newer development is a bit loosely connected and several paragraphs down.
Still needed some copyright concerns addressed; since the reporter had made an effort and reduced the problem already, though, I saw no point in being stiff-necked about it.
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.
