Talk:Volvo announces all new car models electric or hybrid from 2019

Review of revision 4328636 [Not ready]

Revision 4328636 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: When I did a preliminary comparison with the sources, I immediately found a very long passage copied from source and somewhat "scuffed up" (the passage was about twenty words long; no the rule-of-thumb at WN:PILLARS#own mentions four consecutive words). I' m thinking if it was that easy to find a very long passage, there are likely to be more. Do not copy passages, and do not copy and then scuff up (changing a few words here and there), which does not protect from accusations of plagiary. Besides the compact advice at WN:PILLARS#own, there is also discussion at WN:Plagiarism. You need to use a synthesis-writing technique that does not involve copying source passages and then modifying them; don't copy them in the first place. Another reviewer has embedded some criticisms in the article as html comments <!--like this-->. 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 4328636 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: When I did a preliminary comparison with the sources, I immediately found a very long passage copied from source and somewhat "scuffed up" (the passage was about twenty words long; no the rule-of-thumb at WN:PILLARS#own mentions four consecutive words). I' m thinking if it was that easy to find a very long passage, there are likely to be more. Do not copy passages, and do not copy and then scuff up (changing a few words here and there), which does not protect from accusations of plagiary. Besides the compact advice at WN:PILLARS#own, there is also discussion at WN:Plagiarism. You need to use a synthesis-writing technique that does not involve copying source passages and then modifying them; don't copy them in the first place. Another reviewer has embedded some criticisms in the article as html comments <!--like this-->. 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.

Thanks. Reworked it, and hopefully it's better this time. -- numbermaniac 03:40, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4328893 [Passed]

Revision 4328893 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The reporter extensively reworked the article to address concerns of the previous review; thank you. I made some additional edits in this regard (since the amount needed had been drastically reduced); don't take my edits as an ideal model, though, since as a reviewer I'm constrained in how much I can change things — for original presentation, deeper structural changes are preferable. 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 4328893 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The reporter extensively reworked the article to address concerns of the previous review; thank you. I made some additional edits in this regard (since the amount needed had been drastically reduced); don't take my edits as an ideal model, though, since as a reviewer I'm constrained in how much I can change things — for original presentation, deeper structural changes are preferable. 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.