Talk:Japan's National Diet passes law allowing Emperor Akihito to abdicate within three years

Review of revision 4322120 [Passed]

Revision 4322120 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There was material too close to source; the reporter should work on doing better on that. 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 4322120 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:00, 12 June 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There was material too close to source; the reporter should work on doing better on that. 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.

Which material was too close to a source, so I can amend it? I paraphrased one quote. --George Ho (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Pi zero. --George Ho (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: I sufficiently mitigated the passages I found; if I hadn't been able to, I would have not-ready'd the article. The sort of things I can do as a reviewer are, sometimes, adequate, but they aren't ideal; at its best, synthesis can be profoundly dissimilar to the sources. I've reviewed synthesis where material from any given sentence in a source is likely to end up distributed widely across the Wikinews article, and information in any one sentence (or even clause) of the Wikinews article may draw on widely separated parts of a source or even multiple sources; yet the Wikinews article presented everything in an order that felt completely natural. (It was something of an eye-opener for me the first time I reviewed an article like that; I wished there were a way to share that inside view with Wikinews writers, so they'd see what is possible, and I'm still looking for a way to share it.) Btw, there's usually no need to break up direct quotes (not unless perhaps it's a really long quote), though there's no harm in it. You should be able to find the thing I mitigated in the detailed history of edits during review. -_Pi zero (talk) 18:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)