Talk:Australia celebrates Australia Day 2009

Peer review

I have passed this for newsworthiness, verifiability and style.

I haven't failed it for copyright or NPOV, but I have concerns.

As far as copyright is concerned, it looks ok on the whole, but the AAP quote from the parader in Melbourne may bend the rules a little (in terms of AAP's copyright on selection and arrangement of material.)

For neutral point of view, is the mention of an aboriginal term enough? However, the AAP's style of brief mentions of aboriginal participation here, a protest there, and a reconciliation event in another place, leaves me cold. So, I don't know what way Wikinews should approach it.

I am concerned about timeliness, (it is Wednesday in Oz now), so it would be good if 1 or 2 contributors chip in and complete this review, if necessary tweaking the article.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you really mean to cite last year's paper for the dunny race? If the result is your original reporting just say what you saw here, and delete the source. Gathering news yourself is encouraged!

It is passed for verifiability apart from this small nit.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 14:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I take it from the new banner that DF disputes my 'pass' on style. The original contributor has chosen to use the 'shorts' layout which seems reasonable to me. Compare Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Day 20. It is nowhere near as good as Wikinews's best articles, but its not so bad, compared to what the professionals created on the same topic.

We need more people to weigh in to see what needs to be done to get a consensus to publish this. If it doesn't get fixed in a way that achieves a consensus, it will soon be deleted as stale.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I share your concerns, but can offer no resolution. I am not expert enough on intra-Australia affairs. --SVTCobra 03:28, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

1. RockerballAustralia fixed the sourcing of the dunny race. It is print-only media, so I can't check the facts: the policy asks for it to be verifiable not verified.
2. On reflection on the aboriginal participation issue, I am willing to bow to RockerballAustralia's editorial judgement. Events take place across UK to mark Remembrance Sunday did not mention conscientious objections or peace campaigners, and the world did not stop turning.
3. For copyright, I deleted the AAP vox pop pending further discussion.

So to summarize my review as it stands now:

• copyright - passed
• newsworthiness - passed
• verifiability - passed
• NPOV - passed
• Style - passed

However, the use of headings remains disputed, so the article can't be published until someone removes the headings (replacing them with prose) or DragonFire withdraws the dispute banner.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 10:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Review

Revision 759096 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm not fond of the style of this article, but I'm going to treat it like I'd treat a shorts article. Gopher65talk 23:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC) 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 759096 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm not fond of the style of this article, but I'm going to treat it like I'd treat a shorts article. Gopher65talk 23:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC) 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.