Talk:Charges against Sally Faulkner and 60 Minutes news crew dropped in Lebanon abduction case

@Pi zero: Hi again, I know I'm stuck on a topic but I figured a follow-up was now necessary...Little issue, after you changed the name (sorry about breaking the 'breaking' rule) I can't find the story in the Newsroom while logged off. Is that an issue? A bad re-direct maybe? -- Liv UOW (talk) 13:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Liv UOW: I see it there (under subitted-for-revI iew rather than developing). In general, if the newsroom isn't showing what it ought to, you may be able to fix it by clicking the "refresh" icon. --Pi zero (talk) 14:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: okay 👌 thanks' --180.181.102.139 (talk) 14:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4207878 [Not ready]

Revision 4207878 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:21, 18 April 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: The lede needs to be clarified. What's needed is the essence of what happened. I read this lede and wasn't sure what had happened; presumably a reader not already familiar with the story wouldn't know from it what happened. Someone didn't appear in court over kidnapping charges? What is the significance (a few words ought to indicate the big picture of the story)? Why did they not appear? I suspect a few words of explanation may be appropriate as to what "did not appear" means in practice. 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 4207878 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:21, 18 April 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: The lede needs to be clarified. What's needed is the essence of what happened. I read this lede and wasn't sure what had happened; presumably a reader not already familiar with the story wouldn't know from it what happened. Someone didn't appear in court over kidnapping charges? What is the significance (a few words ought to indicate the big picture of the story)? Why did they not appear? I suspect a few words of explanation may be appropriate as to what "did not appear" means in practice. 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.

@Liv UOW: --Pi zero (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2016 (UTC) @Pi zero: I see what you mean. Was a late night write up. Hopefully the changes clarify things...Thanks --Liv UOW (talk) 00:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4207913 [Not ready]

Revision 4207913 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 12:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: We got the initial difficulty with the lede straightened out in good time (thanks), but then, unfortunately, I didn't get to this yesterday. The hearing was adjourned to Wednesday and now it's Wednesday, with the result that a headline about "adjourned again without verdict" now would be confusing because honestly out-of-date, a particularly straightforward example of losing freshness due to the march of further events. The consolation, fwiw, is that it should be possible to refocus on events of Wednesday. 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 4207913 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 12:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: We got the initial difficulty with the lede straightened out in good time (thanks), but then, unfortunately, I didn't get to this yesterday. The hearing was adjourned to Wednesday and now it's Wednesday, with the result that a headline about "adjourned again without verdict" now would be confusing because honestly out-of-date, a particularly straightforward example of losing freshness due to the march of further events. The consolation, fwiw, is that it should be possible to refocus on events of Wednesday. 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.

@Pi zero: Yes I was keeping an eye on the developments and any comments here throughout the day. I've just finished this write up now, hopefully it's not too messy.

Just wondering, in terms of time references in the article, do I write them as current, even though a reviewer may not get the piece published until the following day and will have to make the changes. e.g. I write "today this happened" and they must obviously change it if it's publish the following day. --Liv UOW (talk) 13:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

@Liv UOW: This has been an awkward point for as long as I've been on Wikinews (I guess that's going on seven years now [wrong; going on eight years]). Two likely techniques:

• use the currently correct term "today" or "yesterday" and put after it an html comment with the day of the week, such as today<!-- on Wednesday -->.
• use the day of the week, hoping the reviewer will remember to change it to "today" or "yesterday" as appropriate.

Neither technique is foolproof, although the second technique has the advantage that if the reviewer forgets to alter the relative dates at all, at least they'll be technically correct though not giving maximal immediacy. --Pi zero (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4208307 [Passed]

Revision 4208307 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There were a number of distinctive/somewhat-overlength passages identical to sources; the longest was the start of the second-to-last paragraph, which now starts "In remarks to". Please be more diligent on this point; the rule of thumb is no more that three consecutive words, with exceptions such as name and titles. 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 4208307 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There were a number of distinctive/somewhat-overlength passages identical to sources; the longest was the start of the second-to-last paragraph, which now starts "In remarks to". Please be more diligent on this point; the rule of thumb is no more that three consecutive words, with exceptions such as name and titles. 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.