Talk:Second sinkhole appears in Australian city this week

Review of revision 2653846 [Passed]

Revision 2653846 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This article had a number of passages way too close to the sources (mostly, but not exclusively the AAP source). Do not copy source passages and "scuff them up". Take only information from the sources; everything about the presentation of your article should be your own: your choice of facts to include, your arrangement of them, your paragraph structure, sentence structure, phrase structure, word choices, turns of phrase. Once you've done all that it's unlikely there'd be much similarity to the sources, but as a final sanity check, there shouldn't be more than three consecutive words identical to a source. As a reviewer, when I realize going into a review there are several such passages that will need fixing for closeness to source, I have to decide whether it's little enough that I can fix it during review, or whether I should not-ready it for a reporter to fix. I'm ambivalent about my call on this one. The amount I had to change was toward the upper end of what I could do without disqualifying myself as a reviewer; and, moreover, a reviewer can't afford to regularly put this much effort into each article. Still, successful publication is in the plus column :-). 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 2653846 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:14, 28 May 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This article had a number of passages way too close to the sources (mostly, but not exclusively the AAP source). Do not copy source passages and "scuff them up". Take only information from the sources; everything about the presentation of your article should be your own: your choice of facts to include, your arrangement of them, your paragraph structure, sentence structure, phrase structure, word choices, turns of phrase. Once you've done all that it's unlikely there'd be much similarity to the sources, but as a final sanity check, there shouldn't be more than three consecutive words identical to a source. As a reviewer, when I realize going into a review there are several such passages that will need fixing for closeness to source, I have to decide whether it's little enough that I can fix it during review, or whether I should not-ready it for a reporter to fix. I'm ambivalent about my call on this one. The amount I had to change was toward the upper end of what I could do without disqualifying myself as a reviewer; and, moreover, a reviewer can't afford to regularly put this much effort into each article. Still, successful publication is in the plus column :-). 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.

• I really shouldn't have let this headline stand; "... in a week" would have read much better than "... this week". Ah well, far too late now. --Pi zero (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)