Talk:Lebanon car bombings kill dozens outside mosques

Review of revision 1974603 [Not ready]

Revision 1974603 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: News neutrality calls for attributing any potentially uncertain/controversial claims of fact, and any opinions/analysis. It matters who said the number of dead is at least 42, and the origin 500-injured figure appears to be from only one of the sources(?) so, again, who says so? The bit at the end of the lede about appearing to target Sunnis is sheer speculation. Such a thing might well not belong in the lede, and would involve either attributing the speculation to someone else (someone important), or more likely providing the reader with hard facts and letting them reach what conclusions they seem fit (the city is largely Sunni, both mosques were Sunni, I get the impression both were Salafist). Since this involves structural rearrangement concerning the last sentence of the lede, it's well outside what I could "just fix" without disqualifying myself from independent review. 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 1974603 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: News neutrality calls for attributing any potentially uncertain/controversial claims of fact, and any opinions/analysis. It matters who said the number of dead is at least 42, and the origin 500-injured figure appears to be from only one of the sources(?) so, again, who says so? The bit at the end of the lede about appearing to target Sunnis is sheer speculation. Such a thing might well not belong in the lede, and would involve either attributing the speculation to someone else (someone important), or more likely providing the reader with hard facts and letting them reach what conclusions they seem fit (the city is largely Sunni, both mosques were Sunni, I get the impression both were Salafist). Since this involves structural rearrangement concerning the last sentence of the lede, it's well outside what I could "just fix" without disqualifying myself from independent review. 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 1974687 [Passed]

Revision 1974687 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Several passages were too close to the sources. While the facts you report in a synthesis article are from the sources, the presentation should be entirely yours, based on your insight into the story. Your article organization, sentence and phrase structure, imitating no peculiar word choices or turns of phrase. There should be little similarity to source text after all that, but to double-check, there's a rule of thumb that no more than three consecutive words should be identical to any source, with obvious exceptions like titles. Don't copy passages and then "scuff them up" by changing words here and there; note in my edits I've gone for structural changes. Yeah, okay, there was after all another source that did attribute more-than-500-wounded to Red Cross. 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 1974687 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:45, 24 August 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Several passages were too close to the sources. While the facts you report in a synthesis article are from the sources, the presentation should be entirely yours, based on your insight into the story. Your article organization, sentence and phrase structure, imitating no peculiar word choices or turns of phrase. There should be little similarity to source text after all that, but to double-check, there's a rule of thumb that no more than three consecutive words should be identical to any source, with obvious exceptions like titles. Don't copy passages and then "scuff them up" by changing words here and there; note in my edits I've gone for structural changes. Yeah, okay, there was after all another source that did attribute more-than-500-wounded to Red Cross. 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.