Talk:Airborne sedan smashes into dental office in Santa Ana, California, US

Neutrality

@De Wikischim: We should not be making a subjective judgement that this is bizarre. It's not our place to tell the reader what subjective judgement they should make about it. That's a neutrality violation, and needs fixing. --Pi zero (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I've changed the title and the intro now. De Wikischim (talk) 13:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

.:@Pi zero: single quotes…
•–• 13:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Good point. --Pi zero (talk) 13:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, first line does not compell me to read the next one—is written like a blog. It should be only Ws and Hs rather than NPOV triggering adjectives.
•–• 14:00, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: - Sorry but I don't get at all what you mean with "written like a blog" - there are merely facts which are mentioned now. What according to you should be changed? De Wikischim (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

I think SVTCobra, or Green Giant should fix the lede, De Wikischim has been struggling with lede for weeks, maybe they would be able to explain De Wikischim about the lede. I remember Bddpaux explained me how to.
•–• 14:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

De Wikischim; "On Sunday night, a very unusual incident happened" Wikinews should not be saying that, or any news should avoid those set of words. Maybe you should see the revision history of my initial articles—It was hard to get at first but then, Bddpaux did it for me.
•–• 14:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, car accidents like these do not happen very often, I guess. If it isn't allowed (according to the neutrality policy here) to call it unusual, then which other word choice would you prefer most? De Wikischim (talk) 14:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I think you should undelete UEFA Champions League 2014/2015 Bayern Munich 3-2 Barcelona F.C. so that De wikischim can see the revisions, I remember I had not written it in a “news” tone and was bloggish, I guess that might help them. De Wikischim: I would limit the lede to answer Ws and Hs.
•–• 14:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

The lede should get straight to the point, which is to briefly summarize the focal event by succinctly answering as many as possible of the five Ws and an H about it.

"Never forget that if you don't hit a newspaper reader between the eyes with your first sentence, there is no need of writing a second one." — Arthur Brisbane.

--Pi zero (talk) 14:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I have again re-written the lede, trying to follow "five Ws and an H". With this, I've tried to address "Who?"-question too. However, I still do wonder why it would violate neutrality policy to call a car accident of this kind "unusual", "uncommon" etc. - actually it is uncommon, you just can't deny that. De Wikischim (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

My first impression is, that reads pretty well. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Title

Maybe mention in title it hit the second story of the building? Because that is the only thing that makes this story unusual. PS I wish we could use the video of it happening under FU. --SVTCobra 18:15, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Hm. Airborne may be more to the point than second story, since it's possible for a building to be e.g. on a hill so that the second story might be at ground level from upslope. --Pi zero (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

And similarly, airborne can be 30 cm off the ground. I actually didn't mind it when it said 'flying' because if you saw the video, it flew over another driving car. No big deal. --SVTCobra 19:58, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4376338 [Passed]

Revision 4376338 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: In preliminary check for similarities to source (for which I use automation to provide clues; as opposed to deep similarities that may be noticed by a human reviewer later), I observed several passages identical to source and a bit overlength — the rule of thumb is, don't have four consecutive words identical to source, though that isn't all there is to avoiding similarities to source. On an isolated basis, such things are mild enough to simply break up; in the long run, systematically avoid structural similarities to sources, and avoid writing style that causes such similar passages to arise in the first place. I made small tweaks that broke up the passages themselves; keep in mind that the sort of thing I did is not nearly as good as completely rearranging information, so that the grammatical structures aren't similar, and things that occur in the same sentence in a source end up distant from each other in our article, likewise things in the same sentence here are distant in the sources. Interestingly, many of the passages I noticed where identical to both the first and third sources; I wondered at first if they were both from the same wire service, but internal evidence suggests the news.com.au source used the Washington Post article and was a bit less careful about verbatim passages than we aspire to at en.wn. In general, we don't report the opinions/assessments/analysis of journalists at other news services, just as we don't our own, except in rare cases where they become part of the story (a classic example being News of the World phone hacking affair). 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 4376338 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:41, 16 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: In preliminary check for similarities to source (for which I use automation to provide clues; as opposed to deep similarities that may be noticed by a human reviewer later), I observed several passages identical to source and a bit overlength — the rule of thumb is, don't have four consecutive words identical to source, though that isn't all there is to avoiding similarities to source. On an isolated basis, such things are mild enough to simply break up; in the long run, systematically avoid structural similarities to sources, and avoid writing style that causes such similar passages to arise in the first place. I made small tweaks that broke up the passages themselves; keep in mind that the sort of thing I did is not nearly as good as completely rearranging information, so that the grammatical structures aren't similar, and things that occur in the same sentence in a source end up distant from each other in our article, likewise things in the same sentence here are distant in the sources. Interestingly, many of the passages I noticed where identical to both the first and third sources; I wondered at first if they were both from the same wire service, but internal evidence suggests the news.com.au source used the Washington Post article and was a bit less careful about verbatim passages than we aspire to at en.wn. In general, we don't report the opinions/assessments/analysis of journalists at other news services, just as we don't our own, except in rare cases where they become part of the story (a classic example being News of the World phone hacking affair). 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.

Location

Sorry to be nit picky, but for a long time I had no idea where Santa Ana was (and there may well be other places in the world of the same name). The teaster on the Main Page specifies California, but I still think the headline should clarify that this is in the US. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

You're quite right, it should. My bad. --Pi zero (talk)