Talk:Two Australians executed in Indonesia over 2005 drug smuggling case

Infobox

I'm not sure if an infobox for "Indonesia" or "Crime and law" fits best or if no infobox at all is better. KristaUOW (talk) 14:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Krista

I'd favor Indonesia, myself. Which I see on the article. --Pi zero (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3465484 [Not ready]

Revision 3465484 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Don't copy passages from source. Don't copy them and "scuff them up" either; that doesn't produce an acceptably original result. The longest passage I though I'd spotted copied from source turned out to be a direct quote by the source, but treated as if it were a paraphrase here (bit about 'courtesies'). There is also directly quotation of a source here. Although we do allow direct quotation, of course, we do not allow direct quotation of a source unless they become part of the story. Quoting an editorial in a Jakarta newspaper is not appropriate. Miscellany (some precision, some neutrality): Specify time zone of 12:34am. "infamous" seems a suspect adjective; it doesn't tell the reader anything but seems intended to evoke emotion, which would be non-neutral. "in which time it is said..." Who said? Attribute. This is one of the reasons new writing should seek to avoid passive voice: the grammatical function of passive voice is to allow omitting the subject, and news writing is usually better off letting the reader know who acted. Beware of ascribing motives. Did the prisoners say why they weren't signing the warrants? Did they say why they declined blindfolds? If not, merely report the facts that are known; readers can work out for themselves what should be deduced from the facts. 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 3465484 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Don't copy passages from source. Don't copy them and "scuff them up" either; that doesn't produce an acceptably original result. The longest passage I though I'd spotted copied from source turned out to be a direct quote by the source, but treated as if it were a paraphrase here (bit about 'courtesies'). There is also directly quotation of a source here. Although we do allow direct quotation, of course, we do not allow direct quotation of a source unless they become part of the story. Quoting an editorial in a Jakarta newspaper is not appropriate. Miscellany (some precision, some neutrality): Specify time zone of 12:34am. "infamous" seems a suspect adjective; it doesn't tell the reader anything but seems intended to evoke emotion, which would be non-neutral. "in which time it is said..." Who said? Attribute. This is one of the reasons new writing should seek to avoid passive voice: the grammatical function of passive voice is to allow omitting the subject, and news writing is usually better off letting the reader know who acted. Beware of ascribing motives. Did the prisoners say why they weren't signing the warrants? Did they say why they declined blindfolds? If not, merely report the facts that are known; readers can work out for themselves what should be deduced from the facts. 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 3467384 [Passed]

Revision 3467384 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: See history of edits during review. 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 3467384 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: See history of edits during review. 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.