Comments by reviewer:
There is a problem with what news event is being presented, and who it is being attributed to. This goes to newsworthiness, but I'm listing it as style because the problem is likely one of presentation and there is a newsworthy story underneath.
The first sentence of the lede, which one expects to describe the newsworthy event, describes an exclusive interview by another news organization. Then the second sentence introduces what is presented as entirely separate and new information (rather than an expansion of the news event introduced by the first sentence) and attributes it to two LP insiders — but that's hearsay: the information isn't due to two LP insiders, it's due to Lew Rockwell and the existence of the two insiders is part of what is due to Lew. (I incidentally don't see anyhing in the cited sources about who Lew is, which matters as there's cause to attribute to him.)
What's wanted here is to present a story coherent and multi-source (considering LP after exclusion from debates, perhaps?), and bring in both the interview and the insiders-as-attributed as details/elaborations. One doubts either one would appear in full in the first sentence (perhaps nothing there that requires specific attribution?), and once the first sentence has been spent on the overall event, it's not clear both elaborations would fit comfortably in the lede (but perhaps there's a clean way to do it).
I mean to proceed with fact-checking the rest of the article (rl events here permitting), as that should save time after redress of the above difficulties.
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.
Comments by reviewer:
There is a problem with what news event is being presented, and who it is being attributed to. This goes to newsworthiness, but I'm listing it as style because the problem is likely one of presentation and there is a newsworthy story underneath.
The first sentence of the lede, which one expects to describe the newsworthy event, describes an exclusive interview by another news organization. Then the second sentence introduces what is presented as entirely separate and new information (rather than an expansion of the news event introduced by the first sentence) and attributes it to two LP insiders — but that's hearsay: the information isn't due to two LP insiders, it's due to Lew Rockwell and the existence of the two insiders is part of what is due to Lew. (I incidentally don't see anyhing in the cited sources about who Lew is, which matters as there's cause to attribute to him.)
What's wanted here is to present a story coherent and multi-source (considering LP after exclusion from debates, perhaps?), and bring in both the interview and the insiders-as-attributed as details/elaborations. One doubts either one would appear in full in the first sentence (perhaps nothing there that requires specific attribution?), and once the first sentence has been spent on the overall event, it's not clear both elaborations would fit comfortably in the lede (but perhaps there's a clean way to do it).
I mean to proceed with fact-checking the rest of the article (rl events here permitting), as that should save time after redress of the above difficulties.
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.
I see, now it's posted, in all that I never went in detail into what's problematic with the headline. But a good headline should suggest itself fairly readily once the lede is in good shape. --Pi zero (talk) 21:39, 26 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
As now presented, this is an article focused on the fact that Lew Rockwell said something on his blog. Put another way, the focal event is that somebody the international reader has never heard of —and whose credentials are not presented in the article— says that somebody else says that Gary Johnson says he wants to pursue LP nomination. When one puts it that way, it doesn't sound like news, it sounds like gossip. I was concerned about this potential difficulty before, and in a serious blunder, failed to make my concern obvious in my previous review comments. At the very least, I should have checked not ready on newsworthiness, to flag out the issue.
It isn't sufficient to explain who Lew Rockwell is, although it may be necessary since his testimony on this doesn't carry any weight otherwise. It would still be single-source, though, since Rockwell isn't somebody whose pronouncements are news events in themselves. (If Obama said Lady Gaga had told him she was going to enter the presidential race, that would be news — not because of any judgement on Obama's trust-worthiness, but because his saying it is news regardless of whether it's true).
I don't know that it's impossible to cast this in news form (I don't actually know it's possible, either). We have two sources, the Santa Fe New Mexican and Lew Rockwell. Each describes a discreet release of information, and focusing overly on either release, as an event in itself, wouldn't work; which is why in my previous review comments I tentatively suggested taking the greatest common factor of the two and presenting that as the focus. The GCF makes for a somewhat nebulous focus, though.
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.
As now presented, this is an article focused on the fact that Lew Rockwell said something on his blog. Put another way, the focal event is that somebody the international reader has never heard of —and whose credentials are not presented in the article— says that somebody else says that Gary Johnson says he wants to pursue LP nomination. When one puts it that way, it doesn't sound like news, it sounds like gossip. I was concerned about this potential difficulty before, and in a serious blunder, failed to make my concern obvious in my previous review comments. At the very least, I should have checked not ready on newsworthiness, to flag out the issue.
It isn't sufficient to explain who Lew Rockwell is, although it may be necessary since his testimony on this doesn't carry any weight otherwise. It would still be single-source, though, since Rockwell isn't somebody whose pronouncements are news events in themselves. (If Obama said Lady Gaga had told him she was going to enter the presidential race, that would be news — not because of any judgement on Obama's trust-worthiness, but because his saying it is news regardless of whether it's true).
I don't know that it's impossible to cast this in news form (I don't actually know it's possible, either). We have two sources, the Santa Fe New Mexican and Lew Rockwell. Each describes a discreet release of information, and focusing overly on either release, as an event in itself, wouldn't work; which is why in my previous review comments I tentatively suggested taking the greatest common factor of the two and presenting that as the focus. The GCF makes for a somewhat nebulous focus, though.
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.
When we're using material from someone else's exclusive, we don't want to deprive them of their due credit; hence my resurrection of your bygone passage about 'told The SFNM', which I placed to hopefully avoid an impression of greater dependence on that source than actually exists.
When Wikinews articles are used as sources, put 'em in Related news.
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.
When we're using material from someone else's exclusive, we don't want to deprive them of their due credit; hence my resurrection of your bygone passage about 'told The SFNM', which I placed to hopefully avoid an impression of greater dependence on that source than actually exists.
When Wikinews articles are used as sources, put 'em in Related news.
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.
