Talk:California releases search warrant for Wells Fargo bank on identity theft

Review of revision 4257170 [Not ready]

Revision 4257170 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:27, 21 October 2016 (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: See below. Comments by reviewer: Our usual description of 'minimal length' for an article is at least three paragraphs with total text (however distributed between paragraphs) equivalent to at least three medium-sized paragraphs. The total text here is a bit low; but also, this really is only two paragraphs — it's not just mechanically two paragraphs, following the principle of one-thought-to-one-paragraph, there are only two thoughts here. A (nontrivial) third paragraph/third thought would presumably take care of the total-text deficit as well. I found the lede a bit difficult to follow with this organization; you want to put the current event first, and then the parts of it the reader needs to know to make sense of it. The phrase "growing chorus" is purple prose, which is phrasing for effect; news writing shouldn't be for effect, but should simply present the facts, neutrally. 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 4257170 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:27, 21 October 2016 (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: See below. Comments by reviewer: Our usual description of 'minimal length' for an article is at least three paragraphs with total text (however distributed between paragraphs) equivalent to at least three medium-sized paragraphs. The total text here is a bit low; but also, this really is only two paragraphs — it's not just mechanically two paragraphs, following the principle of one-thought-to-one-paragraph, there are only two thoughts here. A (nontrivial) third paragraph/third thought would presumably take care of the total-text deficit as well. I found the lede a bit difficult to follow with this organization; you want to put the current event first, and then the parts of it the reader needs to know to make sense of it. The phrase "growing chorus" is purple prose, which is phrasing for effect; news writing shouldn't be for effect, but should simply present the facts, neutrally. 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.

Thought

I notice the current event is still at the end of the lede rather than the beginning. I s'pose I should have been clearer on that point in my review comment. It is perhaps just about possible for a reviewer to carefully rearrange the lede to fix this, if they minimize the change and there's nothing else major wrong with the article; I'd hoped to encourage a change to that during revision, which would have avoided the reviewer having to decide whether and how they could do it. --Pi zero (talk) 23:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Wells Fargo Logo

I resubmitted another revision, but I'm not sure it will pass. I found a logo for Wells Fargo, but wasn't sure where to insert it into the draft. I'm leaving a link to Wikimedia Commons in case a reviewer wants to add it if the draft passes review. Thank you.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Wells_Fargo_Bank.svg

--Leftcoastbanana (talk) 09:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4257619 [Passed]

Revision 4257619 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The difficulty with the lede, which I fear I failed to communicate clearly, was that the first thing described needed to be the thing that just happened — the focal event. The thing that happened on Wednesday. The thing that happened on October 5 is too old to be the focal event, and isn't relevant to the current news until one already knows about the current event. Thus, the order of mention of the two events needed to be reversed. I tried to do so with minimal change to the phrasing submitted by the reporter. I found it unexpectedly difficult to sort out the story to verify the facts presented. Although the facts presented were well-chosen given the length, there was much more to the story that could have strengthened the article. Items that immediately come to mind are the nature of the alleged crimes (e.g., why they were done, and how they differ from conventional identity theft), the scale (e.g, dollars, numbers of accounts, numbers of employees, number of years), and perhaps the resignation. The WSJ appears to be paywalled; however, the information needed from it is included (just barely) in the teaser provided before the paywall. (It is, in any case, evidently a second source for that information.) 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 4257619 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The difficulty with the lede, which I fear I failed to communicate clearly, was that the first thing described needed to be the thing that just happened — the focal event. The thing that happened on Wednesday. The thing that happened on October 5 is too old to be the focal event, and isn't relevant to the current news until one already knows about the current event. Thus, the order of mention of the two events needed to be reversed. I tried to do so with minimal change to the phrasing submitted by the reporter. I found it unexpectedly difficult to sort out the story to verify the facts presented. Although the facts presented were well-chosen given the length, there was much more to the story that could have strengthened the article. Items that immediately come to mind are the nature of the alleged crimes (e.g., why they were done, and how they differ from conventional identity theft), the scale (e.g, dollars, numbers of accounts, numbers of employees, number of years), and perhaps the resignation. The WSJ appears to be paywalled; however, the information needed from it is included (just barely) in the teaser provided before the paywall. (It is, in any case, evidently a second source for that information.) 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.

Post-review pass: Too late to add edits to article according to Archive Convention Policy?

An open thanks to @Pi zero for the in-depth editing of the article and patience regarding any mistakes I've made as a Wikinews newbie.

Question in response to your latest comments: Is it too late for me to add to the article in order to strengthen it with details you suggested in your comments e.g. "alleged crimes; scale; and recent resignation? I would like to consider adding them to the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs using the sources I already provided.

--Leftcoastbanana (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Leftcoastbanana: Too late for this article, yes. One thing about news: it keeps moving. One snapshot in time after another; we do our very best with each article in a short time, and then it's time for another story, another snapshot. Whatever does and doesn't work about one article, we apply to later articles.

It is possible to write follow-up articles. A new focal event is needed, of course; but material from earlier articles can be pulled in, without having to alter anything for copyright/plagiary concerns as long as the earlier article is listed as Related news. This is, I gather, a standard technique for professional journalists, who might write a single feature article in a week by starting with small items and snowballing. --Pi zero (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Category to add

{{editprotected}} Add the Kamala Harris category to this article. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:37, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Done --SVTCobra 20:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)