Talk:Human Rights Watch publish documents alleging US cooperated with Libya on torture

Review of revision 1615431 [Not ready]

Revision 1615431 of this article has been reviewed by Tom Morris (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 10:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: The last paragraph is eerily similar to the hrw.org source. Very close paraphrasing is a copyright violation. 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: None added. 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 1615431 of this article has been reviewed by Tom Morris (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 10:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: The last paragraph is eerily similar to the hrw.org source. Very close paraphrasing is a copyright violation. 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: None added. 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 1616942 [Passed]

Revision 1616942 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The close paraphrase issue from earlier was addressed, but only barely. I also had 2 sources saying the document was 154-pages.......instead of 200 (if I missed something/messed up, someone please correct it.) Other than that, this is a valuable article. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC) 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 1616942 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The close paraphrase issue from earlier was addressed, but only barely. I also had 2 sources saying the document was 154-pages.......instead of 200 (if I missed something/messed up, someone please correct it.) Other than that, this is a valuable article. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC) 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.