Talk:Prince Philip of UK makes last solo public engagement after 65 years

Review of revision 4335716 [Not ready]

Revision 4335716 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Do not copy text from the sources. Do not copy and then "scuff up", which does not avoid accusations of plagiary. You need to use a synthesis-writing methodology that does not involve copying passages from the sources and then modifying them. There is some advice about this at WN:PILLARS#own (very compact advice, as everything is on that page), and discussion at WN:Plagiary. I did a full source-check on this article, and found that that the last part of the second paragraph, all of the third and fourth paragraphs, and a couple of parts of the fifth paragraph were spliced-together passages from the sources. The event took place on Wednesday. Wikinews keeps UTC. 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 4335716 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:56, 5 August 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Do not copy text from the sources. Do not copy and then "scuff up", which does not avoid accusations of plagiary. You need to use a synthesis-writing methodology that does not involve copying passages from the sources and then modifying them. There is some advice about this at WN:PILLARS#own (very compact advice, as everything is on that page), and discussion at WN:Plagiary. I did a full source-check on this article, and found that that the last part of the second paragraph, all of the third and fourth paragraphs, and a couple of parts of the fifth paragraph were spliced-together passages from the sources. The event took place on Wednesday. Wikinews keeps UTC. 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 4335898 [Passed]

Revision 4335898 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The reporter took measures to mitigate copyvio difficulties. I took further action against such problems; in my judgment, I could not repeatedly intervene this extensively, but chose to do so once as a modest demonstration of some of the principles involved. Keep in mind that the sorts of edits I can make at all, as a reviewer, are less extensive than the reporter would ideally take before any reviewer saw the article; however, I'm aware that it can take some practice to be able to see how things can be said differently than the way sources state them. 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 4335898 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The reporter took measures to mitigate copyvio difficulties. I took further action against such problems; in my judgment, I could not repeatedly intervene this extensively, but chose to do so once as a modest demonstration of some of the principles involved. Keep in mind that the sorts of edits I can make at all, as a reviewer, are less extensive than the reporter would ideally take before any reviewer saw the article; however, I'm aware that it can take some practice to be able to see how things can be said differently than the way sources state them. 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.