Talk:U.S. Supreme Court restores presidential candidate Donald Trump to Colorado ballot

Sources

I think I can only access the NYT article on account of getting one free article (per month, perhaps?), and that therefore using it as a source is forbidden by WN:PAYWALL. And I simply can't access the Washington Post article, which obviously I need to be able to do to review this, without encountering a paywall. Heavy Water (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I've replaced both walled sources. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 20:02, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Review of revision 4771311 [Passed]

Revision 4771311 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This struggled significantly with distance from source. Had I known in advance how extensive the problems would be proportional to the article's length, I probably would've not-readied it. But for the most part, the problematic passages were not of the long verbatim-with-source-passages type that set off the automated copyvio detector which I use for preliminary checks. I would advise the reporter consult the (brief) explanation of distance from source techniques at the pillars of writing page; an article has to have original presentation, rather than the author just changing out some words within a passage that is structurally similar to a source passage ("scuffing up"). There's also advice to help achieve this to read the sources, write the en.wn article from memory, and then compare it against the sources (perhaps the worst way to try to achieve it is to copy passages from the sources and then modify them for distance from source, which unfortunately is not uncommon when people are new). Weirdly, there was some stuff in the second paragraph which repeated lede material. This article was written before the Colorado primary involved in this case occurred on Tuesday and hasn't been updated since, but in this case I think that doesn't unduly affect the freshness of the article. 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 4771311 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This struggled significantly with distance from source. Had I known in advance how extensive the problems would be proportional to the article's length, I probably would've not-readied it. But for the most part, the problematic passages were not of the long verbatim-with-source-passages type that set off the automated copyvio detector which I use for preliminary checks. I would advise the reporter consult the (brief) explanation of distance from source techniques at the pillars of writing page; an article has to have original presentation, rather than the author just changing out some words within a passage that is structurally similar to a source passage ("scuffing up"). There's also advice to help achieve this to read the sources, write the en.wn article from memory, and then compare it against the sources (perhaps the worst way to try to achieve it is to copy passages from the sources and then modify them for distance from source, which unfortunately is not uncommon when people are new). Weirdly, there was some stuff in the second paragraph which repeated lede material. This article was written before the Colorado primary involved in this case occurred on Tuesday and hasn't been updated since, but in this case I think that doesn't unduly affect the freshness of the article. 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.

As always, thank you for the feedback. Regarding the "scuffing up," there wasn't any scuffing up. The two main sources were completely changed after I made the mistake of using paywalled sources, but the copy wasn't changed.[1] All changes after the sources changed were cosmetic, link changes. I merely verified the new sources supported the main facts as well as the original, paywalled sources. The similarities could have been a result of being such a short and simple article. I should have checked my work against the new sources for similarities in text. Lesson learned. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:05, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I think in the original version I wrote of those comments it was clear I was only saying that as a caution in case you were doing it, but now I can see that clarity was lost at some point. Sorry. Heavy Water (talk) 15:47, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

No apologies necessary and no offense taken. The similarities were avoidable. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 16:52, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Couldn’t this similarity be an instance of a revised source too closely following this article?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:558:6001:2D:1DA1:3DB0:5CF1:F649 (talk • contribs)

(General reminder) Please leave a signature when joining discussions. MathXplore (talk) 12:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

(Note) Talkback sent to the reviewer, please wait for a while. MathXplore (talk) 12:30, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Um...no, that is very nearly certain to have not happened. Heavy Water (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)