Talk:At least 26 killed in another Brazil prison riot
Via
editWhat's the relationship between UPI and the ministry of justice? "Via" means "through." "The president reported via her aide" means the aide is the one who actually spoke and pres told him what to say. It seems more likely that the UPI would report what Ministry of Justice said than the other way around.
It's kind of confusing to read that "Press Org. reports X via govt. organization." It does not seem to me to be necessary to double attribute information in this way. It seems that it would not be necessary to say in visible text which reliable source provided the information to us. If your goal is to speed up Wikinews' review process by telling the Wikireviewer where everything came from, I've had good results with embedding that information in the Wikicode like this: <!--Write your message here and the reader won't see it.--> Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- This article is going to set a good example for WN:Attribution, I believe.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 13:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)- According to WN: Attribution, the point of saying which news organization provided a given quote or fact is to give credit to their reporting work. It seems that this would be appropriate in cases in which the news organization had direct contact with the ultimate source but not when that news organization is just repeating someone else's news report. For example, I would think it appropriate to credit Agencia Brasil in-text for the information about the riot but not CNN for telling us what Agencia Brasil said, even though we got it from CNN. For that, CNN gets its place in the source list but not in the text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
- Another good reason would be if there's any reason to be unsure as to accuracy of what's reported. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 16:15, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- According to WN: Attribution, the point of saying which news organization provided a given quote or fact is to give credit to their reporting work. It seems that this would be appropriate in cases in which the news organization had direct contact with the ultimate source but not when that news organization is just repeating someone else's news report. For example, I would think it appropriate to credit Agencia Brasil in-text for the information about the riot but not CNN for telling us what Agencia Brasil said, even though we got it from CNN. For that, CNN gets its place in the source list but not in the text. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
AFP
editI tried to click the AFP link and got a page not found. @George Ho: Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
- Replaced the link with the Yahoo one. --George Ho (talk) 07:10, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Review of revision 4279916 [Passed]
edit  |
Revision 4279916 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:17, 17 January 2017 (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 4279916 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:17, 17 January 2017 (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. |