Minimal article size is generally three paragraphs with total text equivalent to about three medium-sized paragraphs. The first paragraph should be as described at WN:Lede, the remainder follow an inverted pyramid. You probably need at least 50% more text, perhaps a bit more.
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.
Minimal article size is generally three paragraphs with total text equivalent to about three medium-sized paragraphs. The first paragraph should be as described at WN:Lede, the remainder follow an inverted pyramid. You probably need at least 50% more text, perhaps a bit more.
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.
There was a lot of cutting near the end of this review, more than ordinarily I'd have been willing to do. A great deal of the back ground was either analysis (which we do not allow, as part of our neutrality policy) or, more often, simply background I did not find in the sources. (Can I miss stuff? Heck yes. Hoping not in this case.) The thing is, the later two thirds or so of the article were added after my first review, where I said we needed three paragraphs, and described total minimal text as equivalent to three medium-sized paragraphs without explaining what qualifies on Wikinews as a medium-sized paragraph. It's a lot smaller than a medium-sized paragraph on Wikipedia. So it didn't seem appropriate to not-ready the article for a lot of unsourced material that appeared to have been added because of the interpretation of instructions I'd given on the first review. Given that it was simple removal, which is by far the least involving form of edit a reviewer can make, I judged I was within bounds.
Besides a few smallish passages that were too close to source and therefore needed redress, there was a quite long passage in the police account of what happened that was essentially copied from source and "scuffed up". Copy-and-scuff-up is not acceptable. See the guidelines at WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing#own.
The image doesn't work as well since the background on the task force was cut.
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 was a lot of cutting near the end of this review, more than ordinarily I'd have been willing to do. A great deal of the back ground was either analysis (which we do not allow, as part of our neutrality policy) or, more often, simply background I did not find in the sources. (Can I miss stuff? Heck yes. Hoping not in this case.) The thing is, the later two thirds or so of the article were added after my first review, where I said we needed three paragraphs, and described total minimal text as equivalent to three medium-sized paragraphs without explaining what qualifies on Wikinews as a medium-sized paragraph. It's a lot smaller than a medium-sized paragraph on Wikipedia. So it didn't seem appropriate to not-ready the article for a lot of unsourced material that appeared to have been added because of the interpretation of instructions I'd given on the first review. Given that it was simple removal, which is by far the least involving form of edit a reviewer can make, I judged I was within bounds.
Besides a few smallish passages that were too close to source and therefore needed redress, there was a quite long passage in the police account of what happened that was essentially copied from source and "scuffed up". Copy-and-scuff-up is not acceptable. See the guidelines at WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing#own.
The image doesn't work as well since the background on the task force was cut.
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.
