Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I am visiting this event regularly since many years. --House1630 (talk) 18:46, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The whole German version was written be myself and is based on the German sources. The translation was also done only by me - using my own language knowledge and dictionary. I live in Bremen and I have observed the described events. --House1630 (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
I have taken three photos - two of them only today and published here for the first time. It's a document with the picture of the last group no. 146 from today - now the first picture on the left - and you can't find this fact elsewhere till now. Also some background informations are the result of my own research. The German sources are rather similar to the English sources - though they are newer. It is original reporting, because I am an eye witness and have been at the events for several times, so that most of the information is really trustworthy. --House1630 (talk) 15:14, 27 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
If some of the background information is not in the sources, you need to specify here exactly which background information that is, and how you got it. Otherwise the reviewer would have to try and fail to find the information in the sources —a slow and painful process for the reviewer— and either
(a) remove it or
(b) find the article not-ready, requiring the writer to document it or remove it.
Original reporting involves detailed reporter's notes. OR does not avoid sourcing; the sourcing takes a different form and has in-some-ways-different functions. But the above sentence doesn't qualify as meaningful OR notes; it doesn't verify any information that's in the article, as far as I can see. Either this article shouldn't be tagged as OR, or it should have detailed reporter's notes.
The two sources here are both German, and you offer no help with translation. We can't rely on automatic translation for review, as automatic translation technology is laughably bad. The reviewer needs to pick up on nuances, but automatic translation can't even reliably identify basic meaning.
I'm guessing this is a translation of the article on German Wikinews. A translation is, as I understand the issues involved, a derivative work — that is, the act of translation doesn't escape the copyright of the original, and adds further conditions on top. So presumably you need to credit the German version in order to use it without violating copyright. I take that to mean, the German article needs to be credited in the article, rather than merely by means of an interwiki link. [Possibly one could use a Sister links section in the article for this.]
The reviewer is also responsible for checking that the article doesn't violate copyright of the sources (in addition to, in this case, not violating copyright of the de.wn article). That too is more difficult when the reviewer can't read the language of the sources.
There are also style problems here. Some of these might be fixable by a reviewer (without losing independent status, needed for review), others not. The first paragraph —the lede— should be a short paragraph answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about the news event that is the focus of the article. Perhaps the first sentence of this could simply be made a paragraph by itself. The rest of the article should also be broken up into reasonably short paragraphs (typically two to four sentences, but the important thing is one thought per paragraph, and one paragraph per thought), loosely following inverted pyramid style. There is a problem in that first sentence, though, with the basic question where. Someplace in Germany, apparently, but "the place behind the main station" leaves me with no idea where in Germany we're talking about.
I've only mentioned some problems that caught my attention, of course; no idea what other difficulties may lurk.
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.
Original reporting involves detailed reporter's notes. OR does not avoid sourcing; the sourcing takes a different form and has in-some-ways-different functions. But the above sentence doesn't qualify as meaningful OR notes; it doesn't verify any information that's in the article, as far as I can see. Either this article shouldn't be tagged as OR, or it should have detailed reporter's notes.
The two sources here are both German, and you offer no help with translation. We can't rely on automatic translation for review, as automatic translation technology is laughably bad. The reviewer needs to pick up on nuances, but automatic translation can't even reliably identify basic meaning.
I'm guessing this is a translation of the article on German Wikinews. A translation is, as I understand the issues involved, a derivative work — that is, the act of translation doesn't escape the copyright of the original, and adds further conditions on top. So presumably you need to credit the German version in order to use it without violating copyright. I take that to mean, the German article needs to be credited in the article, rather than merely by means of an interwiki link. [Possibly one could use a Sister links section in the article for this.]
The reviewer is also responsible for checking that the article doesn't violate copyright of the sources (in addition to, in this case, not violating copyright of the de.wn article). That too is more difficult when the reviewer can't read the language of the sources.
There are also style problems here. Some of these might be fixable by a reviewer (without losing independent status, needed for review), others not. The first paragraph —the lede— should be a short paragraph answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about the news event that is the focus of the article. Perhaps the first sentence of this could simply be made a paragraph by itself. The rest of the article should also be broken up into reasonably short paragraphs (typically two to four sentences, but the important thing is one thought per paragraph, and one paragraph per thought), loosely following inverted pyramid style. There is a problem in that first sentence, though, with the basic question where. Someplace in Germany, apparently, but "the place behind the main station" leaves me with no idea where in Germany we're talking about.
I've only mentioned some problems that caught my attention, of course; no idea what other difficulties may lurk.
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.
Furthermore to say: en-wikinews as well as de-wikinews Terms of use both are about attributing just "wikinews", without specifying language. So theres no special problem with interchanging texts between de-WN and en-WN.... --Itu (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hm. Giving credit where due isn't just a legal issue, it's a social and moral one as well. Nor is credit (let alone copyright) the only issue involved with documenting the origins of the material. There's legal, and then there's desirable. --Pi zero (talk) 15:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
So the wikinews-license smashs with social and moral issues. One may think so. But, since this license isn't new, that's a common thing; its better to discuss this at 'higher Place'. In this case the author would have to credit himself, and he did ;) Regarding 'documenting the origins' read the second item in my first statement. Regards. --Itu (talk) 17:01, 20 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
The actual situation here is that the article is synthesis and, as such, is no longer fresh in this reviewer's judgement.
The reason it reached this situation appears to be an accumulation of several factors.
Our review process requires the reviewer to rigorously check the sources. There are no reviewers available atm who are fluent in German to simply read and cope with the sources directly.
As noted in the first review, automatic translation is not nearly good enough.
No help was offered on the talk page for translating the sources; therefore, request for review left the burden of coping with the German sources entirely on the reviewer (and as noted, no available reviewers fluent in German were available). The need for this appears not to have been successfully communicated to the author by the earlier review comments, though they do mention it. It's been pointed out that we'd like to have some sort of how-to on providing this sort of help in dealing with non-English sources.
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.
The actual situation here is that the article is synthesis and, as such, is no longer fresh in this reviewer's judgement.
The reason it reached this situation appears to be an accumulation of several factors.
Our review process requires the reviewer to rigorously check the sources. There are no reviewers available atm who are fluent in German to simply read and cope with the sources directly.
As noted in the first review, automatic translation is not nearly good enough.
No help was offered on the talk page for translating the sources; therefore, request for review left the burden of coping with the German sources entirely on the reviewer (and as noted, no available reviewers fluent in German were available). The need for this appears not to have been successfully communicated to the author by the earlier review comments, though they do mention it. It's been pointed out that we'd like to have some sort of how-to on providing this sort of help in dealing with non-English sources.
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.
No-one has suggested you did automatic translation. The translation difficulty was the need for a reviewer to examine the sources. --Pi zero (talk) 18:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)Reply
The last review was not-ready because the article was no longer fresh. It still has the same sources as before, the newest of which is from six days ago, and four images were added all of which are years old. So nothing done since then has any effect on freshness.
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.
The last review was not-ready because the article was no longer fresh. It still has the same sources as before, the newest of which is from six days ago, and four images were added all of which are years old. So nothing done since then has any effect on freshness.
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.
Even if all these were cleared up, I'm truly unsure whether this article can be rescued. The issues of focus and OR are all tangled up with each other; whether the OR makes it fresh depends on what the focus is... and what the OR is. And apart from all of that is still the difficulty of reviewing with the non-English sources, for which no help has been offered.
As the article now is, the focus is the opening of the fair (both the headline and first sentence say so). This seems unlikely, as there are much more recent sources and appears to be an original image that seems to be from much later; and if it were actually true, the article were purely about the opening, that would raise awkward questions about freshness.
What is the focal event of the article? Is it the opening, or the fair as a whole, or... what? The headline and lede should be making this crystal clear, in a way that causes the reader to immediately see why this is newsworthy — that is, makes them see it is focusing on an event that is specific, relevant, and fresh (keep in mind, again, freshness is affected by the nature of any OR).
The lede should be a brief summary of the focal event explaining it, including why it's newsworthy, by answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about it. Elaborating details and background shouldn't be in the lede. Here the first paragraph is massive, with both elaborating details and background in it. Sometimes the reviewer can simply insert a paragraph break after the first sentence or two and the result is a suitable lede, but there seems no point in doing so when a change of focus looks likely anyway.
There appears to be some OR here, but exactly what is it? If there is indeed OR, there must be an {{original reporting}} tag and a clear explanation on the talk page of what in the article is original. There seems to be one(?) image here that is original; for that, original reporting notes would explain when and under what circumstances it was taken. What else the original reporting notes would cover, I'm not sure, since I'm not sure what else here is original material.
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.
Even if all these were cleared up, I'm truly unsure whether this article can be rescued. The issues of focus and OR are all tangled up with each other; whether the OR makes it fresh depends on what the focus is... and what the OR is. And apart from all of that is still the difficulty of reviewing with the non-English sources, for which no help has been offered.
As the article now is, the focus is the opening of the fair (both the headline and first sentence say so). This seems unlikely, as there are much more recent sources and appears to be an original image that seems to be from much later; and if it were actually true, the article were purely about the opening, that would raise awkward questions about freshness.
What is the focal event of the article? Is it the opening, or the fair as a whole, or... what? The headline and lede should be making this crystal clear, in a way that causes the reader to immediately see why this is newsworthy — that is, makes them see it is focusing on an event that is specific, relevant, and fresh (keep in mind, again, freshness is affected by the nature of any OR).
The lede should be a brief summary of the focal event explaining it, including why it's newsworthy, by answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about it. Elaborating details and background shouldn't be in the lede. Here the first paragraph is massive, with both elaborating details and background in it. Sometimes the reviewer can simply insert a paragraph break after the first sentence or two and the result is a suitable lede, but there seems no point in doing so when a change of focus looks likely anyway.
There appears to be some OR here, but exactly what is it? If there is indeed OR, there must be an {{original reporting}} tag and a clear explanation on the talk page of what in the article is original. There seems to be one(?) image here that is original; for that, original reporting notes would explain when and under what circumstances it was taken. What else the original reporting notes would cover, I'm not sure, since I'm not sure what else here is original material.
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.
The first paragraph went into much too much detail for a lede; I repaired that problem with a minimal change, adding a few words to the end of the first sentence to make it acceptable as a lede, and inserting a paragraph break after it to isolate the details in a separate paragraph. The resulting lede isn't ideal, because the information I put at the end really ought to appear near the beginning of the lede; but I would have had to rewrite the whole sentence to do that, and the reviewer should avoid doing things like that.
The reporter's notes on this should have been more detailed. I could justifiably have found the article not-ready for inadequate notes. However, this was my reasoning:
Reporters should routinely take written notes during these events. It's common to provide a PDF scan of the written notes.
The reporter's notes are both verification of facts in the article, and documentation of where those facts came from. Written notes are not the only form of reporter's notes that contribute toward these goals.
The better documented the OR is, the easier it is for a reviewer to review the article; this one was very difficult to review. If your article is very difficult to review, that makes reviewers less able, and less willing, to reviewer it, so that it may have to wait much longer for review — as has happened to this article.
When good ntoes are provided, it does commonly happen that not every fact in the article is explicitly stated in the notes; the reviewer must then judge whether the provided notes could reliably remind the reporter of the facts in the article. Somes kinds of facts can be remembered reliably with a bit of a reminder; other kinds of facts are too precise for (most) people to remember unless those facts were specifically written down. And some kinds of facts need further documentation of where they came from.
In this case, the reporter said the article (in its earlier form) was "based on" the German sources. I had initially interpreted that to mean that all facts in the article were in the German sources, but I'm now fairly sure that was not the case. As an alternative interpretation, I have chosen to treat the German sources (seen in severely distorted form through an automatic translator) as if they were reporter's notes. Under this interpretation, I then asked whether these "notes" could be expected to remind the reporter of facts in the article.
Applying this principle, there were two things I still could not justify accepting (diff).
In future OR, please provide lots more documentation in the reporter's notes.
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.
The first paragraph went into much too much detail for a lede; I repaired that problem with a minimal change, adding a few words to the end of the first sentence to make it acceptable as a lede, and inserting a paragraph break after it to isolate the details in a separate paragraph. The resulting lede isn't ideal, because the information I put at the end really ought to appear near the beginning of the lede; but I would have had to rewrite the whole sentence to do that, and the reviewer should avoid doing things like that.
The reporter's notes on this should have been more detailed. I could justifiably have found the article not-ready for inadequate notes. However, this was my reasoning:
Reporters should routinely take written notes during these events. It's common to provide a PDF scan of the written notes.
The reporter's notes are both verification of facts in the article, and documentation of where those facts came from. Written notes are not the only form of reporter's notes that contribute toward these goals.
The better documented the OR is, the easier it is for a reviewer to review the article; this one was very difficult to review. If your article is very difficult to review, that makes reviewers less able, and less willing, to reviewer it, so that it may have to wait much longer for review — as has happened to this article.
When good ntoes are provided, it does commonly happen that not every fact in the article is explicitly stated in the notes; the reviewer must then judge whether the provided notes could reliably remind the reporter of the facts in the article. Somes kinds of facts can be remembered reliably with a bit of a reminder; other kinds of facts are too precise for (most) people to remember unless those facts were specifically written down. And some kinds of facts need further documentation of where they came from.
In this case, the reporter said the article (in its earlier form) was "based on" the German sources. I had initially interpreted that to mean that all facts in the article were in the German sources, but I'm now fairly sure that was not the case. As an alternative interpretation, I have chosen to treat the German sources (seen in severely distorted form through an automatic translator) as if they were reporter's notes. Under this interpretation, I then asked whether these "notes" could be expected to remind the reporter of facts in the article.
Applying this principle, there were two things I still could not justify accepting (diff).
In future OR, please provide lots more documentation in the reporter's notes.
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.
