Talk:British Climatic Research Unit's emails hacked
Review of revision 915061 [Failed] edit
 |
Revision 915061 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: This is not breaking - the sources are 2 days old and no new updates are included. This should likely be merged with another earlier failed-review article which is, also, a witch-hunt by climate change sceptics. Questions about the above? Ask. 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. |
Revision 915061 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: This is not breaking - the sources are 2 days old and no new updates are included. This should likely be merged with another earlier failed-review article which is, also, a witch-hunt by climate change sceptics. Questions about the above? Ask. 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. |
 |
Revision 916136 of this article has been reviewed by Superm401 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I had to make some slight changes, including removing a sentence because of NPOV. Superm401 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 916136 of this article has been reviewed by Superm401 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I had to make some slight changes, including removing a sentence because of NPOV. Superm401 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. |
Merge edit
Yes, merge! Just get the story out! and hopefully the Wikinews community (if there is one outside Brian) can help improve the "citizen journo" investigation... I'm keen to see if Wikinews can work this one.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Leighblackall (talk • contribs) 00:44, 23 November 2009
- Merge -- and needs general cleanup & NPOV revisions. See Wikipedia article and its talk page for a more balanced discussion + reliable sources. Peter D. Tillman, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tillman—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.38.193.153 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 November 2009
:Leighblackall, please see whether this merge attempt is all right at my user page: Gryllida (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've made a merge, and placed a review tag at the top. Gryllida (talk) 11:56, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Gryllida, I'm not sure if I should help in this article. My initial attempts were rejected largely on the Reviewers belief that my point of view was too evident and compromised the objectivity of the article, and made my motives questionable. Most recently, in relationg to the CRU story, I've been requested to recuse myself from the story. I do believe I am able to seperate my POV enough to write something with relative objectivity however, and you'll note that another reviewer says on the talk page of the original article that: "...You have a bias. That does not prevent you reporting, but in this case it has done so.". So I'm uncertain if I can help write this article now...
- My advice would be to remove the speculation in the second sentence as it could be called bias, but more importantly I think it strays into commentary when the first few sentences need only state the facts. "This can probably be a consequence of increased attention to CRU after it has played a substantial role in IPCCfourth assessment report (2007)." It is worth retaining this observation of course, later in the story I'd say, and a reference to commentary on The climate science website RealClimate might do as a source to this speculation.
- After the quotes in the article I would address what appears to be more speculation on your part regarding the contents of the emails and motives of the researchers. Perhaps adding "commentators argue.." and referencing that will suffice. Such as:
- Commentators argue that the published messages show the researchers' reluctance to publish raw data used to prove global warming. Some of the correspondence portrays the scientists as feeling under siege by skeptics’ and worried that any stray comment or data glitch could be turned against them.
- I'm looking for a BBC report that says the leaked files have been independently assessed and confirmed at authentic.. I was made aware of it by a Twitter user, but his link seems to not be correct (?).
- Good luck, I hope you get further assistance in writing this story as its certainly news worthy. If I get word that its ok for me to help, I will. Until then I think I should keep my distance. Leighblackall (talk) 01:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Done / To-do edit
This sorts out the current sources and a couple of other issues. Please note the given edit summaries in these edits which specify why each change has been made, and applicable policies.
Additional points:
- Prof. Jones has - in the UEA news/press release - confirmed the emails are genuine by responding to one point from a highlighted email - the "trick" issue. This should be incorporated.
- There seem to be too many sources; for an article to be properly reviewed, the reviewing editor must check every single source, reading it in full. If possible trim sources which duplicate information from each other and can thus be considered redundant.
- Images - some sort of image would considerably improve the look of this article.
--Brian McNeil / talk 16:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Done Please notice the horizontal science and technology information box at the bottom of the page. Gryllida (talk) 01:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- I'd taken that off because I think you can be pretty sure most readers will stop scrolling down when the sources and ext. links sections start appearing. It isn't the prettiest of templates either; but, perhaps put it above the == Sources == and after the HaveYourSay template.
- I'm not going to touch content in this unless it's spelling/grammar/change to active voice. I'm also not about to review it (again). The way the story came up prejudiced me against it, and looked like a POV dispute/war hopping over here.
- So, yes, to all the new 'imports' from Wikipedia, Welcome. I have bad news though; you're looking to do the equivalent of a good, or near-good, Wikipedia article within around 48 hours. Obviously, the clock gets reset when you can find mainstream press with more recent coverage, or if you can do original research. I would advise against the WN:OR route if you've not worked through a few articles and the current review regime before. I — and I believe most other regulars — don't want to see the project a Nupedia of News, we don't want to be a blog, there's a desire to be a source that the wider world of journalism and public regards as credible. Steps have been taken to get the project indexed by Google News, so we do have to set a high standard; GNews does not update their index to reflect changes to the lede or title, they have to be good to start with. --Brian McNeil / talk 01:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
To summarize, the following has been suggested to improve the article (each line signed for the possibility of discussion): Gryllida (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
To-do: remove commentary ("This can probably be a consequence...") from the first paragraph. Gryllida (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
To-do: add speculation intro: "commentators argue.." after the quotations. Gryllida (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
To-do: remove passive voice. Gryllida (talk) 04:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
- Done. The article is most likely ready for a next review of an uninvolved editor. Q0k (talk) 05:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
To-do: Check the date in the opening paragraph. I think the files were published on the 19th (UTC), not the 21st.. see TGIF News report that was issued on the 20th AEST, talking about a releaase the night before... Leighblackall (talk) 05:25, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Post-publish changes edit
A significant amount of text has been changed after publication. In particular, the Jones quote has been expanded, possibly too much. Superm401 | Talk 12:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps; what was more important was adding completely new information, which I removed. What you're highlighting as a change was actually available information prior to publication. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- While it's a news article stemming from a specific event, a hacking incident and some of what was found thereby, this doesn't occur in a vacuum: one aspect of the significance is whether climate analysis was sexed up, as the hacking and the excerpted e-mails purport to reveal; another aspect is what, if anything, is the broader significance to the understanding of climate and political actions contemplated motivated by predictions based on that understanding. Other media are spinning this as evidence that global warming is a hoax/conspiracy. This particular event focuses on a research unit and it's head, i.e. one person in particular, and what he may or may not have done. First, he defended himself in the press release, and whatever one may think of his defense, it's not out of line to quote him. Second (and this should have been included at the time of the first quote inclusion, my own time constraints at play) he sought to point out that not all of the evidence for climate change rest either on the graph immediately in question or all of his or his unit's work, and noted plain observables that anyone can understand to support that. News has context. Wikinews ought not make itself a megaphone of smears by blocking out relevant statements of the principals to a story. An alternative would be a separate follow-up article, "Climate scientist defends himself and his team's work," but that would risk being rejected as not newsworthy in itself. 76.172.219.186 (talk) 22:53, 26 November 2009 (UTC)