Talk:Lindt cafe in Sydney reopens after siege

Review of revision 3340810 [Not ready]

Revision 3340810 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: In the now-third paragraph, second and third sentences, are awfully close to source — second to AP, third to ABC. Do not copy source passages and "scuff them up", as this does not avoid accusations of plagiary; see WN:PILLARS#own. The first sentence of the lede was also too close to source, but I was able to mitigate that problem whilst fixing other problems there; it may be useful to look at that and consider why it was a problem before (though of course I was limited, in changing it, by my need to remain an independent reviewer). This says the two people were employees; in fact, it says so twice. I didn't find that in the sources; it sounds more like only one of them was. For some reason, btw, I had initial difficulty accessing the Global News source; I was able to do it, finally, by making a local copy of the page and stripping all the javascript out of it. 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 3340810 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: In the now-third paragraph, second and third sentences, are awfully close to source — second to AP, third to ABC. Do not copy source passages and "scuff them up", as this does not avoid accusations of plagiary; see WN:PILLARS#own. The first sentence of the lede was also too close to source, but I was able to mitigate that problem whilst fixing other problems there; it may be useful to look at that and consider why it was a problem before (though of course I was limited, in changing it, by my need to remain an independent reviewer). This says the two people were employees; in fact, it says so twice. I didn't find that in the sources; it sounds more like only one of them was. For some reason, btw, I had initial difficulty accessing the Global News source; I was able to do it, finally, by making a local copy of the page and stripping all the javascript out of it. 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 3343042 [Passed]

Revision 3343042 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The distance-from-source problem was really quite extensive. The whole paragraph was involved. The things I did to mitigate the problem are not as good as what could be done by a writer who is trying to not imitate the sources, because as a reviewer I was limited to things that wouldn't get me too "involved" in the article; if I got too involved I'd have to disqualify myself from reviewing it. One of the techniques I used was cutting out material, which is a useful technique for reviewers because one can do it without getting very "involved". See WN:PILLARS#own. There were some factual and technical problems here and there; watch out for those. The use of commas with appositives needed fixing in a number of places; even the Wikinews:Style guide, which is kept deliberately quite short so writers can realistically read it in its entirety, has a section devoted to appositives. See the detailed history of edits during review (I deliberately make small edits during review so each can have a specific explanation and, hopefully, a clear diff to see exactly what was done). 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 3343042 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The distance-from-source problem was really quite extensive. The whole paragraph was involved. The things I did to mitigate the problem are not as good as what could be done by a writer who is trying to not imitate the sources, because as a reviewer I was limited to things that wouldn't get me too "involved" in the article; if I got too involved I'd have to disqualify myself from reviewing it. One of the techniques I used was cutting out material, which is a useful technique for reviewers because one can do it without getting very "involved". See WN:PILLARS#own. There were some factual and technical problems here and there; watch out for those. The use of commas with appositives needed fixing in a number of places; even the Wikinews:Style guide, which is kept deliberately quite short so writers can realistically read it in its entirety, has a section devoted to appositives. See the detailed history of edits during review (I deliberately make small edits during review so each can have a specific explanation and, hopefully, a clear diff to see exactly what was done). 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.