I finally decided I agree; it's not really "breaking". The meaning of "breaking" being, of course, that the dust hasn't settled yet, i.e., best information is likely to change soon enough after publication that one would update the article itself rather than write a new one. The canonical example would be a disaster where the death tool is likely to rise rapidly; one would report something like "authorities say at least ten people were killed" (attribution, key to accurate/neutral reportage), and then a few hours after publication one might edit that, with sourcing, to a bigger number. --Pi zero (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
The lede is, afaict, inaccurate: according to the source provided each of the three got three years this time around, although last time one got more than the other two.
Along the way to fixing that,
It would be good to get another full-blown news article, independent of the one now provided, corroborating the focal event (the verdict). What's there now is marginally acceptable for verification — one AP article, and a tweet that I'm satisfied really is from Greste's account — but we ask for two independent sources partly for breadth of perspective, which aids both accuracy and neutrality.
The related news article can be freely drawn on for background material. There's no copyright issue at all, because we're citing it in the Related news section and, under the Wikinews license, we can therefor reuse the text in it with impunity.
The length is pretty minimal right now; it's really a little below our usual minimal length for article text, although I'd probably have let it through as a marginal case if that had been the only problem.
I wasn't comfortable significantly changing the lede, since my roll is that of an independent reviewer — independent of authorship of the article. The lede is the most crucial part of the article, and it's a short article so the edit would be large relative to the article as a whole.
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 lede is, afaict, inaccurate: according to the source provided each of the three got three years this time around, although last time one got more than the other two.
Along the way to fixing that,
It would be good to get another full-blown news article, independent of the one now provided, corroborating the focal event (the verdict). What's there now is marginally acceptable for verification — one AP article, and a tweet that I'm satisfied really is from Greste's account — but we ask for two independent sources partly for breadth of perspective, which aids both accuracy and neutrality.
The related news article can be freely drawn on for background material. There's no copyright issue at all, because we're citing it in the Related news section and, under the Wikinews license, we can therefor reuse the text in it with impunity.
The length is pretty minimal right now; it's really a little below our usual minimal length for article text, although I'd probably have let it through as a marginal case if that had been the only problem.
I wasn't comfortable significantly changing the lede, since my roll is that of an independent reviewer — independent of authorship of the article. The lede is the most crucial part of the article, and it's a short article so the edit would be large relative to the article as a whole.
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 article would have been stronger with more about international reaction. Julie Bishop was mentioned, but there were various others. Besides Bishop, Al Jaz, and Greste, there was only a half-sentence that was cut because it violated our neutrality policy — a strong statement without attribution. Look for objective facts to help inform the reader — that's why news attributes things so much, who said what: we can be objectively very confident about what someone said, and report objectively that they said it, without taking a position on whether it's true (and no matter how subjective, or controversial, the thing said might be).
Some of the fixes I did during the first review got undone during the article revisions. See the edit history.
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 article would have been stronger with more about international reaction. Julie Bishop was mentioned, but there were various others. Besides Bishop, Al Jaz, and Greste, there was only a half-sentence that was cut because it violated our neutrality policy — a strong statement without attribution. Look for objective facts to help inform the reader — that's why news attributes things so much, who said what: we can be objectively very confident about what someone said, and report objectively that they said it, without taking a position on whether it's true (and no matter how subjective, or controversial, the thing said might be).
Some of the fixes I did during the first review got undone during the article revisions. See the edit history.
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.
