Talk:Woman awarded 18.6 million dollars in lawsuit against Equifax

Review of revision 1965747 [Not ready]

Revision 1965747 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:42, 31 July 2013 (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: You need to write in your own words. The lede here is essentially two passages copied verbatim from AP, put in a different order. I didn't look beyond that; this problem needs fixing everywhere that it occurs. Avoid imitating the overall arrangement of ideas in a source, or the paragraph structure, sentence structure, or phrase structure. Avoid imitating distinctive words or peculiar turns of phrase. By the time you've done all those things, there probably won't be much that's at all similar, but a rule of thumb is that you shouldn't have more than three consecutive words identical to a source, with obvious exceptions like titles. We're okay for only about another day or so on freshness here, because we need something new to have come to light within 2–3 days. The most recently come to light information here is from the ABC News article, on Monday. (The publication date of the article doesn't matter, but we do have new information there, so it counts.) 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 1965747 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:42, 31 July 2013 (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: You need to write in your own words. The lede here is essentially two passages copied verbatim from AP, put in a different order. I didn't look beyond that; this problem needs fixing everywhere that it occurs. Avoid imitating the overall arrangement of ideas in a source, or the paragraph structure, sentence structure, or phrase structure. Avoid imitating distinctive words or peculiar turns of phrase. By the time you've done all those things, there probably won't be much that's at all similar, but a rule of thumb is that you shouldn't have more than three consecutive words identical to a source, with obvious exceptions like titles. We're okay for only about another day or so on freshness here, because we need something new to have come to light within 2–3 days. The most recently come to light information here is from the ABC News article, on Monday. (The publication date of the article doesn't matter, but we do have new information there, so it counts.) 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 1966163 [Passed]

Revision 1966163 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This is at the outer edge of what could reasonably be judged fresh (at the reviewer's discretion). The need for a not-ready/revision/resubmit, and reporter-reviewer timing differences (submissions came in the late evening for this reviewer), dragged things out. The story was also less than ideally fresh when first written, on which it didn't help that the mainstream press was slow picking up the story in the first place (the sources came out Sunday and Monday, following the jury's decision on Friday). I increased distance from source with a number of edits (see the edit history). This is more than a reviewer would do on a regular basis, but a meaningful effort had already been made, and hopefully it's a useful demonstration of some techniques. Nice first 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 1966163 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This is at the outer edge of what could reasonably be judged fresh (at the reviewer's discretion). The need for a not-ready/revision/resubmit, and reporter-reviewer timing differences (submissions came in the late evening for this reviewer), dragged things out. The story was also less than ideally fresh when first written, on which it didn't help that the mainstream press was slow picking up the story in the first place (the sources came out Sunday and Monday, following the jury's decision on Friday). I increased distance from source with a number of edits (see the edit history). This is more than a reviewer would do on a regular basis, but a meaningful effort had already been made, and hopefully it's a useful demonstration of some techniques. Nice first 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.