Talk:Bernie Sanders ends 2020 US presidential bid

Latest comment: 4 years ago by DannyS712 in topic Lightly

Notes edit

--DannyS712 (talk) 20:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

it is not common knowledge for all the reviewers. (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Which is why I provided a source here --DannyS712 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Put the source where the article is.
•–• 20:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Headline edit

When you create an article, think about readers who are not from your country. (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Renamed --DannyS712 (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Review of revision 4557967 [Not ready] edit

I mean, the four words could have just been removed, or the source listed here used (I recall Pi zero commenting at one point that if the author provides the source on the talk page, the reviewer copying it to the article doesn't count as the reviewer adding the source themselves) but done --DannyS712 (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
If the article is not under review; and the author has not previously mentioned they would not be able to edit; in those cases, the author has to provide the sources. We go for removing pieces of information as the last resort when we can't afford removing articles from review; author fixing; and then resubmitting the article. If one is to remove information at the first hint of trouble, then the information is not really relevant here.
•–• 21:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I provided the source (see above) but its water under the bridge at this point, lets move on --DannyS712 (talk) 21:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
It is a thing to remember in future: if you can't edit wiki for considerable amount of time, you can drop the source in a talk page, and ask reviewer to add it, stating you would not be able to edit now. If the article is not under the review, add the source. Don't assume it is a common knowledge.
•–• 21:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I didn't assume it was common knowledge; please don't implied that I did --DannyS712 (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

It is one monolithic piece of advise, which should not be broken down in pieces. If you are on a bus and you can't edit on your phone, put the source link on talk stating your reason. Else don't assume it is common knowledge unless it is marked under review and you have confirmed with the reviewer. If you can edit, and it is not under review: add it yourself.
•–• 22:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

If the advice includes an assumption about me, it may run afoul of Wikinews:Never assume. As far as I can tell, the advice works fine saying "one should not assume it is common knowledge" rather than addressing me in the imperative, so again, please do not imply that I assumed it was common knowledge. I made no such assumption --DannyS712 (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I told you it is an advise not to be broken since it is monolithic. Yet you choose to break it into pieces. That is an advice to all authors for all the time. Don't assume it is common knowledge. "If the reviewer who is reviewing has said, then it is all right. Else, put it in the article all the time." Also, have a look at your own comment: "but I believe that it can be considered common knowledge".
•–• 23:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
"I believe that it can be considered common knowledge" is not the same as "I believe that it is common knowledge". I can say "I believe that Trump can be considered a good president" and "I believe that Trump can be considered a bad president" because they both can be considered, not because I believe both. If the advice is for all authors for all time, I suggest phrasing it in a way that does not imply it is directed at me. If it cannot be phrased in such a way, and if "it is an advise not to be broken since it is monolithic", then the entirety of the "monolithic" advice should not be given, per Wikinews:Never assume. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
When I clearly stated it is for all the authors for all the time: don't submit less than incomplete articles. Some leniency is shown for new authors or when the author is really afk. But if that is not the case, add all the sources. Don't roll with the assumption the reviewer would know. Consider this, your reviewer could be somewhere from UTC+0100 or UTC+1000 or UTC+0500. Are they going to search for that information? If so, you must provide that information on the main page. New sources on talk pages should be listed only when the author is really not in a condition to add it promptly.
If you feel it was directed towards you...Well, didn't I state it was for all the authors, and you are a part of that group?
•–• 23:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Easy, folks (both). Review involves criticism by its very nature, and working out how best to express the criticism is a separately extraordinarily difficult task. In a smooth writer/reviewer collaboration, both sides are confident that both are working toward the same goals, and neither has to devote extra time to worrying about whether their remarks will be misconstrued. Over many years I have, gently, tried different approaches and sought to develop habits that would cause my comments to be well-taken, but (a) that's been an exercise over years, (b) I'm not sure I've actually done better despite all my striving, and (c) I repeatedly get myself in trouble by being too soft. --Pi zero (talk) 23:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Is all this about whether or not a source was on the list on the article, versus mentioned in supplementary notes here? If so, this is perhaps an illustration of how I still haven't found the right formula for how best to handle these things. I mean, I have sometimes been willing to take a source mentioned in talk-page notes and promote it to listing on the article. I don't mind sometimes having to do that; if it's less work for all involved, why not... but then, I'll have self-doubts: is the reporter going to come to rely on reviewers doing that? Am I creating more review labor for myself, going forward; or, worse, creating more labor for some other hapless reviewer; or, even worse than that, setting up a possible source of friction in some future interaction between the reporter and some other reviewer? There's no set formula for how to do all this, either, and creating such a formula seems likely to make everyone's tasks harder by creating more rules to keep track of. All of which is implied when I, as a reviewer, try to decide whether I should be willing to shift a source from the talk page to the article Sources list. --Pi zero (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Review of revision 4557985 [Not ready] edit

WN:PYRAMID calls for paragraphs of "only one or two sentences (three if you use very short sentences)" (bold in original) and says to "Use brief paragraphs — between 30 and 80 words is considered acceptable in newspaper writing" - the third paragraph was one sentence, as called for, and 32 words. Anyway, I expanded it a bit, so its no longer important --DannyS712 (talk) 21:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Unrelated to the review. but gosh. I seem to have liked bernie for nearly seven years now. This is sad. :-(
Related to review: a photo of bernie and biden would be nice to have. Gryllida (talk) 02:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Gryllida:   Done --DannyS712 (talk) 03:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lightly edit

There was a sentence about not taking the decision lightly. That sentence showed up on the auto-assisted prelim check for similarities to source; the whole sentence occurred as a word-sequence in the CNN source. In the CNN source as it was when I accessed it, the part of it that we had in double-quotes wasn't quoted at all. So, however it happened, major problem. However, it seemed to me the whole sentence could simply be excised with no loss to our paragraph or article, since the following clause provides evidence to the same effect. --Pi zero (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I didn't see it either, not sure where Acagastya got it from - thanks for removing it --DannyS712 (talk) 21:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Um, going through the source I had cited might be a good place to start where I got it from, DannyS712. Pi zero, it is around 15:40 in the video.
•–• 22:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I did look at the source you provided, but I must have missed it; please don't imply that I did not (just saying "Its in the source I cited around 15:40" would have been enough) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

I never said you didn't.
•–• 00:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

True. However, stating "going through the source I had cited might be a good place to start" implied that I hadn't (which is why I asked you not to "imply that I did not", rather than "say that I did not") --DannyS712 (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Suspended edit

It's usual that these campaigns get technically suspended rather than ended as such, and Bernie did technically suspend rather than end. I wondered about that, but haven't had a change to it, yet. --Pi zero (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Okay, he did use the word "end". And there's no easy way to work in the "suspend" thing. Good enough. --Pi zero (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Review of revision 4558194 [Passed] edit

Return to "Bernie Sanders ends 2020 US presidential bid" page.