Talk:Over 900 asylum seekers rescued off Indonesian coast

Review of revision 3506919 [Not ready]

Revision 3506919 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede needs rewritten. It reads as if (pardon) it was copied from The Guardian's lede and then scuffed up and decorated with some bits from elsewhere, without standing back to ask whether the result makes sense. It doesn't, really. The navy picked up an extra 200 people? Sounds like coming in in the middle of a coversation; extra beyond what? Then the second sentence says this was after something else happened, and that that was earlier on the same day, and it's all very confusing. It seems that the original problem here is starting with the structure of The Guardian's lede and then modifying it; the structure of your text should be driven by the meaning of your text, not the meaning of somebody else's text. In the Guardian article, what they'v written makes perfect sense; here, with the changes made, it doesn't make sense, and the backbone structure of the lede is an unnatural one that gets in the way when reading it. I noticed the third paragraph was similar to a paragraph from The Age; they share the phrase "policy of turning away", but again they share backbone structure which is neither good practice from a non-plagiary perspective nor good practice for the quality of text. Completely rewriting things forces (well, encourages) you to really think about the meaning and how it flows in the article. After finding those two, I really wondered if there were other such passages I just wouldn't notice until I did a really in-depth source-check. Note The Age's article seems to be from AFP. So naming The Age as where claims came from isn't really accurate. Morever, though, the two places where the article does that are things that afaics aren't excludes (we give credit to a news service for their exclusive) nor controversial (we attribute controversial claims as a matter of neutrality), so really The Age probably shouldn't be mentioned in either case. 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 3506919 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:42, 16 May 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede needs rewritten. It reads as if (pardon) it was copied from The Guardian's lede and then scuffed up and decorated with some bits from elsewhere, without standing back to ask whether the result makes sense. It doesn't, really. The navy picked up an extra 200 people? Sounds like coming in in the middle of a coversation; extra beyond what? Then the second sentence says this was after something else happened, and that that was earlier on the same day, and it's all very confusing. It seems that the original problem here is starting with the structure of The Guardian's lede and then modifying it; the structure of your text should be driven by the meaning of your text, not the meaning of somebody else's text. In the Guardian article, what they'v written makes perfect sense; here, with the changes made, it doesn't make sense, and the backbone structure of the lede is an unnatural one that gets in the way when reading it. I noticed the third paragraph was similar to a paragraph from The Age; they share the phrase "policy of turning away", but again they share backbone structure which is neither good practice from a non-plagiary perspective nor good practice for the quality of text. Completely rewriting things forces (well, encourages) you to really think about the meaning and how it flows in the article. After finding those two, I really wondered if there were other such passages I just wouldn't notice until I did a really in-depth source-check. Note The Age's article seems to be from AFP. So naming The Age as where claims came from isn't really accurate. Morever, though, the two places where the article does that are things that afaics aren't excludes (we give credit to a news service for their exclusive) nor controversial (we attribute controversial claims as a matter of neutrality), so really The Age probably shouldn't be mentioned in either case. 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 3514843 [Passed]

Revision 3514843 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 3514843 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:57, 18 May 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.