Talk:Queensland state Premier announces March 24 election date

OR

Original research is based on the 2009 results for the seat of Mt Coot-tha, as verified here.

DS4SEQ aren't running candidates this time around, as per this post on their Facebook page. --RockerballAustralia c 08:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1382187 [Not ready]

Revision 1382187 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I'll allow the news event itself is (barely) corroborated by two independent sources, as the Greens press release alludes very slightly to the event. However, verification is only one of several reasons we require multiple sources. Another that comes to mind here is copyright. Most of this article (paragraphs 1–6) is drawn from the CM source. Four paragraphs, 2–5, are drawn from two blocks in the CM source, and in each of the two cases the text here is too similar to the source. Even the paragraph break in the middle of each block is preserved (at least one of these is poor style as it breaks up a single thought — just btw), and the second half of each is a direct quote which is identical here even to the non-quote context words. In the first case, the earlier paragraph here starts with some gratifyingly un-source-like text followed by a fourteen-word verbatim copy-pasta. In the second case, the earlier paragraph here could be made sufficiently distant without much trouble (it does have a five-consecutive-word verbatim passage —aim for no more than three— and some furher preserved distinctive word choice). Although the last bit of that sentence appears to be a non-source-based description of Newman's position, if I were about to publish this I would delete that bit as unverified since it does not appear to be what he is saying as supported by the quote here or by the further quotes in the source. 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 1382187 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I'll allow the news event itself is (barely) corroborated by two independent sources, as the Greens press release alludes very slightly to the event. However, verification is only one of several reasons we require multiple sources. Another that comes to mind here is copyright. Most of this article (paragraphs 1–6) is drawn from the CM source. Four paragraphs, 2–5, are drawn from two blocks in the CM source, and in each of the two cases the text here is too similar to the source. Even the paragraph break in the middle of each block is preserved (at least one of these is poor style as it breaks up a single thought — just btw), and the second half of each is a direct quote which is identical here even to the non-quote context words. In the first case, the earlier paragraph here starts with some gratifyingly un-source-like text followed by a fourteen-word verbatim copy-pasta. In the second case, the earlier paragraph here could be made sufficiently distant without much trouble (it does have a five-consecutive-word verbatim passage —aim for no more than three— and some furher preserved distinctive word choice). Although the last bit of that sentence appears to be a non-source-based description of Newman's position, if I were about to publish this I would delete that bit as unverified since it does not appear to be what he is saying as supported by the quote here or by the further quotes in the source. 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.

Oh, one other item I'd noted: the last paragraph is copy-pasta from the press release; surely we can do better than that. --Pi zero (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The one paragraph I've not mentioned at all is the second-to-last (sixth). I'm leery of it, but did not source-check it in this review. By process of elimination it must be where the OR comes in. The words "stiff competition" sound non-neutral, but I can't know how much of a problem that is till I've source-checked it. --Pi zero (talk) 15:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1382846 [Passed]

Revision 1382846 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Shame, from reading the prior review, quite a lot ended up on the cutting-room floor. Tip for future reference: Some infoboxes can, as in this case, be trimmed back with a |short=yes parameter. 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 1382846 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:39, 26 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Shame, from reading the prior review, quite a lot ended up on the cutting-room floor. Tip for future reference: Some infoboxes can, as in this case, be trimmed back with a |short=yes parameter. 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.