The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ¡
Article talk (
|
history) ¡
Watch
Reviewer: Argenti Aertheri ( talk ¡ contribs) 02:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Iâll update this as I work on the review
~ Argenti Aertheri
(Chat?)
Last edited:
23:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Checked via bot as I don't speak Serbian. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | See below | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Much better! | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Hi, thank you for picking up this for a review. I'll look for some better images if there are any. Voice of America has high-quality ones but I don't know whether they covered these protests. -- Vacant0 ( talk) 12:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This still has a lot of copy editing issues. You should probably submit it to the guild of copy editors for someone to clean it up. The timeline in the lead is quite confusing, for example: "Between September 2021 and February 2022, environmental organisations organised protests ... Protests resumed in November 2021". November 2021 is between September 2021 and February 2022, so presumably the protests stopped at some point? Iâd check the sources myself, but that leads to my next point.
You've got a serious case of overlinking. The article has 3,719 words, and 271 citations. Thatâs a different citation for every 14ish words, or one per sentence. Do none of the news articles mention multiple protests? Some of these can definitely be cut, as I skimmed the English ones and some definitely did mention past protests. Also, not everything needs multiple citations.
"Protesters gathered at Pioneers Park, Belgrade at around 14:00 (UTC+01:00), and they demanded Rio Tinto leave Serbia. Several thousand demonstrators attended the protest." has 4 citations, citations not used to support anything else in the article. It needs only one that says thousands of demonstrators gathered a pioneers park to demand Rio Tinto leave Serbia. I can't tell if this is improper synthesis as I canât read Serbian, but itâs an issue for basically every sentence.
Oddly, while that fairly uncontroversial statement has 4 citations, this has 0: "The demonstrators were attacked by armed hooligans and pro-government activists". First, armed hooligans should absolutely not be Wikipediaâs voice, second, the wording links the two, implying that the pro-government activists were like the "armed hooligans". I don't know if this is a NPOV issue, or just words to watch. The good news is there aren't many of this sort of thing, and theyâre easy to fix (cite, or reword).
I'm also on the fence whether it covers all points of view without going on any tangents. It could probably do with more background as to why the government did what it did, but wikilinking a well written article might be enough.
I'm not going to outright fail it (yet), because while I doubt this can be cleaned up quickly, it's Thursday and maybe you can spend the weekend on it? Review the articles linked in the table, and give a one over to the ones I've linked, see what sources can be eliminated by using ones that cover a broader range, and then submit a request for a copy editor to take a look. They've got an almost 3 month long backlog, but maybe it'll catch someone's interest.
I'll check back Monday and see how you're doing on it, if youâre making real progress it'll stay on hold, if not it's a failure for now. ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 22:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Please give the whole thing a careful review, I changed a bunch of stuff that makes it read better. I donât think I changed the meaning of anything, but I canât check the sources to be sure.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ¡
Article talk (
|
history) ¡
Watch
Reviewer: Argenti Aertheri ( talk ¡ contribs) 02:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Iâll update this as I work on the review
~ Argenti Aertheri
(Chat?)
Last edited:
23:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Rate | Attribute | Review Comment |
---|---|---|
1. Well-written: | ||
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. | ||
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. | ||
2. Verifiable with no original research: | ||
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. | ||
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). | ||
2c. it contains no original research. | ||
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. | Checked via bot as I don't speak Serbian. | |
3. Broad in its coverage: | ||
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. | See below | |
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). | ||
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. | ||
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. | ||
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: | ||
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. | ||
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. | Much better! | |
7. Overall assessment. |
Hi, thank you for picking up this for a review. I'll look for some better images if there are any. Voice of America has high-quality ones but I don't know whether they covered these protests. -- Vacant0 ( talk) 12:26, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
This still has a lot of copy editing issues. You should probably submit it to the guild of copy editors for someone to clean it up. The timeline in the lead is quite confusing, for example: "Between September 2021 and February 2022, environmental organisations organised protests ... Protests resumed in November 2021". November 2021 is between September 2021 and February 2022, so presumably the protests stopped at some point? Iâd check the sources myself, but that leads to my next point.
You've got a serious case of overlinking. The article has 3,719 words, and 271 citations. Thatâs a different citation for every 14ish words, or one per sentence. Do none of the news articles mention multiple protests? Some of these can definitely be cut, as I skimmed the English ones and some definitely did mention past protests. Also, not everything needs multiple citations.
"Protesters gathered at Pioneers Park, Belgrade at around 14:00 (UTC+01:00), and they demanded Rio Tinto leave Serbia. Several thousand demonstrators attended the protest." has 4 citations, citations not used to support anything else in the article. It needs only one that says thousands of demonstrators gathered a pioneers park to demand Rio Tinto leave Serbia. I can't tell if this is improper synthesis as I canât read Serbian, but itâs an issue for basically every sentence.
Oddly, while that fairly uncontroversial statement has 4 citations, this has 0: "The demonstrators were attacked by armed hooligans and pro-government activists". First, armed hooligans should absolutely not be Wikipediaâs voice, second, the wording links the two, implying that the pro-government activists were like the "armed hooligans". I don't know if this is a NPOV issue, or just words to watch. The good news is there aren't many of this sort of thing, and theyâre easy to fix (cite, or reword).
I'm also on the fence whether it covers all points of view without going on any tangents. It could probably do with more background as to why the government did what it did, but wikilinking a well written article might be enough.
I'm not going to outright fail it (yet), because while I doubt this can be cleaned up quickly, it's Thursday and maybe you can spend the weekend on it? Review the articles linked in the table, and give a one over to the ones I've linked, see what sources can be eliminated by using ones that cover a broader range, and then submit a request for a copy editor to take a look. They've got an almost 3 month long backlog, but maybe it'll catch someone's interest.
I'll check back Monday and see how you're doing on it, if youâre making real progress it'll stay on hold, if not it's a failure for now. ~ Argenti Aertheri (Chat?) 22:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Please give the whole thing a careful review, I changed a bunch of stuff that makes it read better. I donât think I changed the meaning of anything, but I canât check the sources to be sure.