Talk:Indian banks propose to use gold deposits as CRR/SLR

Review of revision 2717551 [Not ready]

Revision 2717551 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The first sentence is essentially copied and "scuffed up" from the first sentence of the Telegraph source. Don't copy passages and then try to scuff them up; the result is not proof against claims of plagiary. Although the information should all be drawn from the sources, the presentation of it should be entirely your own: your choice of which facts to include, how to organize them; paragraph structure, sentence structure, phrase structure, word choice, turns of phrase. When you've done all that, there's likely no close similarity to the source; but, as a final sanity check, you shouldn't have more than three consecutive words identical to source, with obvious exceptions such as titles. I do see a couple of longer sequences copied from source here — one of them in the first sentence. These concerns, about not copying and scuffing up, apply to the whole article, of course. Please improve the article on this point; a reviewer can fix an occasional problem here and there, but mustn't get too involved or they'd have to disqualify themself from review. It wasn't today; perhaps that word got copied from the source along with the rest of the sentence, though moved to a different place in the sentence. The jewellery thing seems to have been Saturday (which atm is "yesterday", since English Wikinews keeps UTC). The obvious next question is, when did the other bank announce — earlier? later? 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 2717551 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The first sentence is essentially copied and "scuffed up" from the first sentence of the Telegraph source. Don't copy passages and then try to scuff them up; the result is not proof against claims of plagiary. Although the information should all be drawn from the sources, the presentation of it should be entirely your own: your choice of which facts to include, how to organize them; paragraph structure, sentence structure, phrase structure, word choice, turns of phrase. When you've done all that, there's likely no close similarity to the source; but, as a final sanity check, you shouldn't have more than three consecutive words identical to source, with obvious exceptions such as titles. I do see a couple of longer sequences copied from source here — one of them in the first sentence. These concerns, about not copying and scuffing up, apply to the whole article, of course. Please improve the article on this point; a reviewer can fix an occasional problem here and there, but mustn't get too involved or they'd have to disqualify themself from review. It wasn't today; perhaps that word got copied from the source along with the rest of the sentence, though moved to a different place in the sentence. The jewellery thing seems to have been Saturday (which atm is "yesterday", since English Wikinews keeps UTC). The obvious next question is, when did the other bank announce — earlier? later? 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 2719471 [Passed]

Revision 2719471 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There would be great value in explaining these issues in-depth. Granted, that's no at all easy to do. See detailed history of edits during review. 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 2719471 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There would be great value in explaining these issues in-depth. Granted, that's no at all easy to do. See detailed history of edits during review. 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.