Wikinews

User:InfantGorilla/Talk:Australian Prime Minister accused of poor leadership on climate change

< User:InfantGorilla

I Feel I Should Get A Barnstar For This... Maybe Two...One for General Excellence and Another For Services To Australia =D BKCW8 talk 10:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. You just earned one:


 The Barnstar for the Copyright Infringer a.k.a. Anti-Gillard Protester
Especially for you, Pope of the Antigillard-istic Church, Mr. Bradley! Diego Grez return fire 00:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Diego, mocking another contributor is unhelpful. --Pi zero (talk) 05:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Hehe, I know. But I wanted to do that. :-P Diego Grez return fire 15:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is complete crap, But I accept your Barnster not being one to refuse a gift. Any "infringement" was purely accidental but after reading the below accredits, I can see how it looks like that - removing the article was probably the right thing to do...

I do not blame you Diego Grez for holding a grudge - everyone did come down hard on you for your little stunt at the ArbCom elections =D you're like a poodle in the circus, just keeping jumping through those rings and dont ever change BKCW8 talk 09:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Just as a note, its not really copyvio so much as considered plagerism. Generally you should avoid having more than three consecutive words the same as a source, which can be hard without practise. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1064277 [Failed]

edit
 

Revision 1064277 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 12:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC).

  • Copyright:   Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness:   Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Verifiability:   Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV:   Not ready: Strong anti-Gillard bias. Find a broader range of sources.
  • Style:   Not ready: "Gillard remains firm" etc is editorialization

Comments by reviewer: None added.

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 1064277 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 12:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC).
  • Copyright:   Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness:   Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Verifiability:   Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV:   Not ready: Strong anti-Gillard bias. Find a broader range of sources.
  • Style:   Not ready: "Gillard remains firm" etc is editorialization

Comments by reviewer: None added.

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.

A large part of the story regards the bipartisan objection to Gillard's proposal, I did however get rid of "explosive" terms BKCW8 talk 13:41, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

You changed two words before putting it up for review again, so I added a tasks banner because I think the article and the headline take sides. During an election campaign almost any announcement by a candidate is going to be opposed by the other parties, so I don't think we can make the story wholly or mainly about the opposition statements, just because your sources do. Please do some research into why Labor proposed this policy (from independent policy advisers, opinion polls, focus groups, MPs idea, lobbyists, or whatever it might be), and what the reaction of Labor supporters is to the announcement, then consider if any of that is suitable to add to the article to balance it out. --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: examine English usage as well. eg "The announcment resulted in a bipartisan opposition from The Coalition, The Greens, economists and environmentalists alike." Bipartisan refers exclusively to two (generally political) parties; you mention four groups, only two political parties, the other two being an academic profession and a presumably ideological affiliation. - Amgine | t 16:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


A large part of the story is the objections that both the right and left have to it, it's really phenomenal actually how so many people can hate this policy. If you would help me remove the "bias", that would be a great help...BKCW8 talk 11:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

2 templates?

edit

Both review and cleanup? Kayau (talk · contribs) 12:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1065401 [Passed]

edit
 

Revision 1065401 of this article has been reviewed by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

Comments by reviewer: None added.

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 1065401 of this article has been reviewed by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC).

Comments by reviewer: None added.

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.

Rewrite of one source

edit

It looks to me that this is a rewrite of James Massola's article [1]. It follows the same structure, with several paragraphs cut, and close paraphrases of the rest.

It seems to me that this is not original enough for Wikinews, and despite good intentions, this seems to be likely to be a copyright infringement. I wish I had read Massola's piece when I failed the original review, as it would have saved several contributor's wasted effort improving this.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 07:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are a couple of examples. You shouldn't read this sentence:

Critics, which also included Reserve Bank board member Warwick McKibbin and the Australian Conservation Foundation, labelled today's announcement as, variously, a “policy failure”, a “leadership failure” and a “delay to make it appear that action is being taken”. [2] (para 2)

and then write this:

Reserve Bank board member Warwick McKibbin joins Friends of the Earth protester Bradley Smith and other critics in calling the updated climate change policy, which is set to include a 'Citizens Assembly' among other things, a "lack of leadership", a "policy failure" and a “delay to make it appear that action is being taken”.

Nor can you read this:

Greens climate change spokeswoman Christine Milne was scathing, describing the plan as “rubbish” and saying it delivered no certainty to business.
She predicted Labor's policy would boost the Greens' chances of gaining the balance of power in the Senate.
Senator Milne said the Greens would introduce legislation to put a price on carbon as soon as the next parliament sits.
She said Labor would have “no excuses” to delay an emissions trading scheme if the Greens win the balance of power in the Senate.

and write this:

Senator Christine Milne of the Greens describes it as "rubbish", saying that it delivered no certainty for businesses. With some experts predicting the Greens will gain the balance of power in the Senate and their first seats in The House of Representatives, Milne went on to say that Gillard will have no choice but to face climate change head on with bills the Greens are set to introduce to parliament after the election, which include a carbon emission trading scheme.

Since no-one else is around, I will pull the trigger in order to protect the project from suspicion.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 09:01, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User:InfantGorilla/Talk:Australian_Prime_Minister_accused_of_poor_leadership_on_climate_change&oldid=1071612"