Talk:Kangaroo injures Australian politician

Review of revision 1902985 [Passed]

Revision 1902985 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This article had a number of problems that made source-checking difficult. You should be trying to make source-checking easy. Listed a large number of sources, several of which I suspect —but am unable to be sure, at this point— were not used. We have an explicit policy against listing unused sources, partly because they make the reviewer's task much more difficult. I pulled one detail (the exact height of the kangaroo) as highly suspect. One large passage was apparently drawn from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, it explicitly says it is not a reliable source, and furthermore, even if the facts stated in Wikipedia were properly sourced from elsewhere, copying passages from Wikipedia is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright even if credit is given, because Wikinews's licensing permits uses than Wikipedia's license does not. It was stated here, twice, that he was late to parliament. I only found one source that mentioned when he arrived, and it said he was on time. The concept behind sourcing is to list all and only the sources used, and use only trust-worthy sources (which precludes using Wikipedia). 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 1902985 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This article had a number of problems that made source-checking difficult. You should be trying to make source-checking easy. Listed a large number of sources, several of which I suspect —but am unable to be sure, at this point— were not used. We have an explicit policy against listing unused sources, partly because they make the reviewer's task much more difficult. I pulled one detail (the exact height of the kangaroo) as highly suspect. One large passage was apparently drawn from Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, it explicitly says it is not a reliable source, and furthermore, even if the facts stated in Wikipedia were properly sourced from elsewhere, copying passages from Wikipedia is a violation of Wikipedia's copyright even if credit is given, because Wikinews's licensing permits uses than Wikipedia's license does not. It was stated here, twice, that he was late to parliament. I only found one source that mentioned when he arrived, and it said he was on time. The concept behind sourcing is to list all and only the sources used, and use only trust-worthy sources (which precludes using Wikipedia). 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.