Talk:Bus crash in Ocoña District of Peru costs over 40 lives

Thoughts on focus

The headline atm describes a process rather than a specific event.

The lede atm says inquiries have pointed out such-and-such. Whose inquiries, and when and how did some specific event take place that allowed us to know this? (If there was an announcement, and that announcement is the focal event of the article, telling us about that announcement is the core concern of the lede, and the accident, which is obviously essential here, is essential because it is what the focal event relates to. --Pi zero (talk) 14:18, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Not the announcement, but the investigation into the accident must be considered as the focal event at which the lede focuses. For the rest, I have chosen to focus on the investigation because the accident which happened now almost 2 days ago would already soon be "stale" here. Actually, I would have preferred to focus altogether on the accident itself, but your strict "freshness" policy makes this rather problematic. The conclusion that the driver fell asleep can be found back here, but it is not mentioned who exactly performed those inquiries. So that can't be told here either. De Wikischim (talk) 14:31, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

An investigation is not an event, it's a process. As WN:Specific explains (yes, this goes by quickly, but it's hugely important), an earthquake is a specific event, whereas continental drift is not (though the release of a report about continental drift is a specific event). --Pi zero (talk) 16:20, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: The accident itself is the main focus now. The title has been changed (back) accordingly, as well as the text structure, especially the lede. De Wikischim (talk) 16:29, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Title

Don't forget to capitalize after the colon in the title. --SVTCobra 23:47, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4386254 [Passed]

Revision 4386254 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This did not go smoothly; changes needed to the article were extensive, and I feel I'm at the outer edge of what I could do without disqualifying myself. There were uncomfortably many passages turned up too-close-to-source on the preliminary check, one of which was essentially a whole sentence (about the January 3 crash). I cut a number of passages for lack of verification, as well as one or two for other reasons. Note, just because one source says something doesn't always mean we can safely report it as fact; one has to think about context. For instance, the article was repeating an assertion that 'initial inquiries' indicated the driver may have fallen sleep at the wheel; but that sort of thing needs attribution, and in looking into I found that the only one of our five sources that even mentioned it was Xinhua — Chinese state news, on the other side of the planet, with likely multiple translations to the English text we were reading from the Chinese about this event in Spanish-speaking Peru — and they gave no clear attribution for the claim, which left me feeling it oughtn't be treated as more than a rumor, which of course means we shouldn't be reporting it. Another that sticks in my mind is the time of the crash, with one source saying 12:30 and another 1:30; my guess is 1:30, but there's not enough evidence to prefer that one so much as to report it as fact. Time is important. We can't know to report about what is, only what was. For chancing stuff like death tolls, date of announcement matters. 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 4386254 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This did not go smoothly; changes needed to the article were extensive, and I feel I'm at the outer edge of what I could do without disqualifying myself. There were uncomfortably many passages turned up too-close-to-source on the preliminary check, one of which was essentially a whole sentence (about the January 3 crash). I cut a number of passages for lack of verification, as well as one or two for other reasons. Note, just because one source says something doesn't always mean we can safely report it as fact; one has to think about context. For instance, the article was repeating an assertion that 'initial inquiries' indicated the driver may have fallen sleep at the wheel; but that sort of thing needs attribution, and in looking into I found that the only one of our five sources that even mentioned it was Xinhua — Chinese state news, on the other side of the planet, with likely multiple translations to the English text we were reading from the Chinese about this event in Spanish-speaking Peru — and they gave no clear attribution for the claim, which left me feeling it oughtn't be treated as more than a rumor, which of course means we shouldn't be reporting it. Another that sticks in my mind is the time of the crash, with one source saying 12:30 and another 1:30; my guess is 1:30, but there's not enough evidence to prefer that one so much as to report it as fact. Time is important. We can't know to report about what is, only what was. For chancing stuff like death tolls, date of announcement matters. 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.