Talk:Leading Sierra Leone doctor dies in Ebola epidemic

Review of revision 2779098 [Not ready]

Revision 2779098 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:38, 31 July 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 reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Over half of this I readily identified as passages copied from the sources, with a few words replaced here and there to "scuff it up" a little. As I've noted, that sort of scuffing up doesn't protect against accusations of plagiary. Some whole sentences, as well as some somewhat smaller (but still pretty long) passages are copied from the first and third sources, I observed. The first sentence of the lede is copied from the first source. WN:PILLARS#own. There's no reason this couldn't be made into a solid article; good use of multiple independent sources to drawn together information on the story. Needs to be written with information from the sources rather than passages from them, though. 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 2779098 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:38, 31 July 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 reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Over half of this I readily identified as passages copied from the sources, with a few words replaced here and there to "scuff it up" a little. As I've noted, that sort of scuffing up doesn't protect against accusations of plagiary. Some whole sentences, as well as some somewhat smaller (but still pretty long) passages are copied from the first and third sources, I observed. The first sentence of the lede is copied from the first source. WN:PILLARS#own. There's no reason this couldn't be made into a solid article; good use of multiple independent sources to drawn together information on the story. Needs to be written with information from the sources rather than passages from them, though. 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 2781719 [Passed]

Revision 2781719 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Although the reporter did take some measures to address the previous stated copyright concerns (and thankyou for that), the measures were a lot smaller than the size of the problem. I decided the remaining problem was barely within range of what I might reasonably do; but frankly, even aside from issues of how much a reviewer can do, these problems are taking up enormous amounts of my time and effort. Fixing problems in an article is very difficult; it can easily cause reviewing an article to become much more difficult than writing it was. Please arrange that there not be much that needs fixing. There was a bunch of background information in the lede that I didn't find anywhere in the cited sources. All information in an article needs to be from the cited sources. Note, btw, that if you find some information in Wikipedia, that's not a trust-worthy source; Wikipedia freely admits it's not a trust-worthy source — but you may be able to get the information by going back to whatever source Wikipedia cites for the information. If Wikipedia doesn't cite a trust-worthy source, then the information is doubtful anyway. 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 2781719 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:37, 2 August 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Although the reporter did take some measures to address the previous stated copyright concerns (and thankyou for that), the measures were a lot smaller than the size of the problem. I decided the remaining problem was barely within range of what I might reasonably do; but frankly, even aside from issues of how much a reviewer can do, these problems are taking up enormous amounts of my time and effort. Fixing problems in an article is very difficult; it can easily cause reviewing an article to become much more difficult than writing it was. Please arrange that there not be much that needs fixing. There was a bunch of background information in the lede that I didn't find anywhere in the cited sources. All information in an article needs to be from the cited sources. Note, btw, that if you find some information in Wikipedia, that's not a trust-worthy source; Wikipedia freely admits it's not a trust-worthy source — but you may be able to get the information by going back to whatever source Wikipedia cites for the information. If Wikipedia doesn't cite a trust-worthy source, then the information is doubtful anyway. 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.