Talk:C-17 crashes near air force base in Alaska

First article

First article, let me know what you think! Oaktreezulu (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

That is sad news. Unfortunately your piece is too short, and we always require at least two sources (or original reporting.) You are welcome to read the style guide, improve the article and resubmit it. --InfantGorilla (talk) 11:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Gorilla, thanks for the feedback. I had read some of the guidance but missed that the minimum sources req'd was 2. Is there a set minimum length? Oaktreezulu (talk) 01:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Minimum length is generally 3 short paragraphs, with at around 3 medium length sentences each (that is a soft rule rather than a hard rule, but try to follow it when practical).

Also, 2 *independent* sources are required — IE, both can't be from the Associated Press (AP). Also, CNN, MSNBC, and Fox (among others) like to reprint stories from AP, AFP, and Reuters. So make sure you look at the bottom or the top of each article you get to see which organization wrote it. Sometimes you can get 2 articles from different sources (say CNN and Fox), but they'll both be written by the same agency (AP or Reuters usually), and sometimes even by the same person. Those obviously wouldn't be considered independent sources.

Thirdly, every article's title has to answer the following questions about the article: Who, What, Where. "C1-7" is who, "crashes" is what, and "Alaska" is where, so your article's title is fine... except that it's mis-capitalized;). We only capitalize the first word of an article, except for proper nouns (like Alaska).

Lastly, every article's lede sentence needs to answer those same three questions. Every article's lede paragraph needs to also answer the rest of the 5Ws and 1H (Who, What, When, Where, Why, How). Note that not every article has a "why" to be answered (why did the plane crash? That isn't known at this time), but the other 5 questions are required.

Happy article writing:). I hope you have fun. Gopher65_talk 02:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the capitalization in your article for you, added an infobox (as suggested in the failed review), and switched your sources around (newest first, then older sources). Now all you should have to do is add a little bit of information into your article, add a picture (search Wikimedia Commons for images), wikilink a few terms (C-17 should be linked to wikipedia so that people know what it is. This is how: [[w:Boeing C-17 Globemaster III|C-17]]), and put it back up for review!. Be careful not to simply re-write your sources through. Absorb the information from your sources, and then rewrite it in your own words. Gopher65_talk 02:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Gopher! Trying again...Oaktreezulu (talk) 02:30, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"An amusing number of people worked on this very short article. This is how they all should be:). Gopher65talk 03:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC)" - No kidding! Thanks everyone! Oaktreezulu (talk) 05:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1068225 [Failed]

Revision 1068225 of this article has been reviewed by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Too short- needs at least another paragraph to meet WN stnadards. Not enough context for the reader- what is a C-17, for example? Could do with an infobox and a photo of a C-17- there should be plenty on Commons Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1068225 of this article has been reviewed by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Too short- needs at least another paragraph to meet WN stnadards. Not enough context for the reader- what is a C-17, for example? Could do with an infobox and a photo of a C-17- there should be plenty on Commons Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Review of revision 1068289 [Passed]

Revision 1068289 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: An amusing number of people worked on this very short article. This is how they all should be:). Gopher65talk 03:11, 30 July 2010 (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 1068289 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:11, 30 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: An amusing number of people worked on this very short article. This is how they all should be:). Gopher65talk 03:11, 30 July 2010 (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.