Talk:Circus elephant escapes in Zurich, Switzerland
Fact-checked. Not sure about some of the stylistics, though. Someone more experienced may wish to check this. — μ 21:53, June 8 2010 (UTC)
Review of revision 1040478 [Passed]
edit  |
Revision 1040478 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me. 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 1040478 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me. 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. |
Sources of Pictures and Video (Reversion of)
editI twice posted links to the Swiss German news site that included both original postings of video and pictures relating to this incident (as shown here):
- "Knies Elefantendame «Sabu» (in German, with amateur video)" — 20 Minuten, June 7, 2010
- "Der Abschuss von «Sabu» stand nie zur Debatte (in German, with amateur pictures)" — 20 Minuten, June 7, 2010
Both times, these contributuions were reverted on the basis of reasoning given on my talk page (shown in italics here):
Please do not unneeded sources to articles. Unless there is a good reason – essentially that it is required to add content – sources should not weigh down articles.
…
Thanks! --Brian McNeil / talk 07:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
- There was good reason to add new sources, since (if you had checked), these included video and pictures. As you probably know, it is an objective to provide original sources wherever possible. At the same time, I fixed some minor errors with existing citations. I trust you agree, since this is not an article I want to invest much effort on.
- …
- Hope this helps! Enquire (talk)
- The whole point of not overloading articles with sources is that Wikinews employs Flagged Revisions, and has a formal, independent review requirement for articles. Overloading with sources is likely to stop articles being reviewed as a reviewer is required to read all sources. Trust me, we've been working on this stuff for years - there are very good reasons for the way a lot of things are done. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
At the outset, I think we can all agree this is not an article that is worthy of extended debate. However, I am quite frankly puzzled by the response. For the record, and for future reference; I seek clarification as to exactly what in the style guide precludes links to original postings of related images and video. Certainly, I see nothing that puts a limit of three (as seems to be the case here) on the number of external news sources cited; although I do understand the need to avoid excessive listings of multiple news publishers essentially recycling the same news source.
Given that 20 Minuten has published both pictures and video of this incident, I would assume that these should be included since none of the other existing three news sources include either of these media of this incident. However, one source included their own link to the video (although not the pictures) on 20 Minuten, although they use a URL-shortened link. As is known, URL shortened links frequently expire; so I would think it unreliable to rely on a third-party URL-shortened link. I realize (of course) that the 20 Minuten pages are in German, however the video and pictures require no translation. On a minor story such as this, it is really the images and video that make the story newsworthy. Really, an elephant on a sight-seeing and haute couture window-shopping trip in Zurich!
I appreciate understanding exactly why these sources are not deemed acceptable, because on my plain reading of the style guide I do not see why they should not be included. Rather, it would seem that the intent is to include all disparate sources, of course avoiding needless repetitions of publishers republishing other sources.
You wrote "Trust me" … but I am not quite sure what interpretation of which particular paragraph in the style guide you are referencing. Maybe you are concerned because the sources are in German and that there is a need to translate and verify the material published by 20 Minuten, but that is just my best guess.
In summary, I do not wish to invest much time in this particular story, however, I do wish to understand for future reference the principle (if any) which lead to my contributions being (repeatedly) reverted.