Talk:World's oldest known hafted axe fragment found in Western Australia

Review of revision 4214193 [Not ready]

Revision 4214193 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: This is somewhat below our minimal length for a standalone article. A few more sentences are needed. 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 4214193 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:09, 11 May 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: This is somewhat below our minimal length for a standalone article. A few more sentences are needed. 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 4214393 [Not ready]

Revision 4214393 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:24, 12 May 2016 (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: Do not copy text from the sources; do not copy and "scuff up", either, which does not avoid accusations of plagiary. Keeping in mind that sequences of four consecutive words are problematic (with obvious exceptions such as titles), the longest passage I found was twenty-four words (slightly scuffed by changing a verb tense, so it was twenty-three in the source). That's by no means the only problematic passage here; my preliminary check turned up another nine-word passage and at least three half-dozen-word passages, which is rather a lot considering this is a short article (though now solidly over minimal). I do try to point out these sorts of problems sooner rather than later in the review process; here, the clearest cases were part of the material added after the first review, which some passages present at first review but the pattern was less clear (perhaps partly due to small sample size). 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 4214393 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:24, 12 May 2016 (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: Do not copy text from the sources; do not copy and "scuff up", either, which does not avoid accusations of plagiary. Keeping in mind that sequences of four consecutive words are problematic (with obvious exceptions such as titles), the longest passage I found was twenty-four words (slightly scuffed by changing a verb tense, so it was twenty-three in the source). That's by no means the only problematic passage here; my preliminary check turned up another nine-word passage and at least three half-dozen-word passages, which is rather a lot considering this is a short article (though now solidly over minimal). I do try to point out these sorts of problems sooner rather than later in the review process; here, the clearest cases were part of the material added after the first review, which some passages present at first review but the pattern was less clear (perhaps partly due to small sample size). 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 4214840 [Passed]

Revision 4214840 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The reporter made improvements re distance from source, which I was able to enhance here and there. Thanks. Credit to the institutions is good practice, and at opportunity also coauthors (though often there are too many coauthors to practically mention them all). Usually this sort of thing should mention the journal in the lede, and often also all the institutions involved. (UWA was involved here and isn't mentioned in the body of the article, but does appear as publisher of a source.) 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 4214840 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:53, 13 May 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The reporter made improvements re distance from source, which I was able to enhance here and there. Thanks. Credit to the institutions is good practice, and at opportunity also coauthors (though often there are too many coauthors to practically mention them all). Usually this sort of thing should mention the journal in the lede, and often also all the institutions involved. (UWA was involved here and isn't mentioned in the body of the article, but does appear as publisher of a source.) 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.