Talk:Colegio Preciosa Sangre, Pichilemu, amidst other Chilean schools celebrate Student's Day

Original reporting notes

I was present at the event. I did even take photos, but I don't know where's my data cable <_< --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 22:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable reviewing this a) because it's getting on for midnight here and b)because I don't feel ready to review an OR article but it needs a copyedit- t's difficult to make sense of parts of it, including the opening. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. I'll try to correct by myself my mistakes :) (and I've found the cable :P) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 22:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1020182 [Failed]

Revision 1020182 of this article has been reviewed by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Passed Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Per my comment above, it needs a copyedit, so i think it's best put back to develop for the minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 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 1020182 of this article has been reviewed by HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Passed Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Per my comment above, it needs a copyedit, so i think it's best put back to develop for the minute. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC) 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.

Hmm. HJ. There was no real need to fail it. Articles are certainly copyedited and then are passed, not fail them because they look bad ;) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

It's good practice to polish an article before it's published. When published, the article gets pushed to 3rd parties, social networks, other news sources, google news etc etc. It doesn't get re-submitted when it's edited so they're stuck with the version we push to them when published. --James Pain (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that had to be corrected after being published. I did say that it was better to keep {{review}} until it finally gets reviewed (or I tried to mean that). --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

If HJ says it needs copy editting (twice), it probably does. Putting review on it implies it's ready to go. It's not a tag to use when it still requires editing. --James Pain (talk) 23:31, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Diego, what does "but it was moved to Friday because it has a shorter journey of 5 hours, in most cases" mean? I'll try and give you a hand copyediting it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Forget that. It is complemented with the sections below. =) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

With Bawolff's copyedit, the article is ready to go IMO. :) --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 19:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It still needs much more copyediting, and the scores section is stupid. It's not worthy of the news article at all. Griffinofwales (talk) 20:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

<_< It is local news... --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:04, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

And...? It doesn't need 5 paragraphs of info that isn't even worthy of a local newspaper. The review system on WN is seriously flawed. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:12, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but it just doesn't has info about Pichilemu. Sources show that it is newsworthy. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 23:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I never said it wasn't newsworthy. What isn't newsworthy is the scores of some local school. The story in its current state should not have been published. Griffinofwales (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1020781 [Failed]

Revision 1020781 of this article has been reviewed by Fox (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Those tables need some sort of grouping, they distract. Are they even needed? 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 1020781 of this article has been reviewed by Fox (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Those tables need some sort of grouping, they distract. Are they even needed? 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.

(lag) Done --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 01:34, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1020835 [Passed]

Revision 1020835 of this article has been reviewed by Fox (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1020835 of this article has been reviewed by Fox (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Edit protected request

{{editprotected}} Please add Category:O'Higgins Region. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Done Benny the mascot (talk) 13:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Change filename

{{editprotected}}
Change File:Americo en vivo 2.JPG to .jpg. Thanks. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 18:36, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Done — Gopher65_talk 00:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Edit req

{{editprotected}} Please remove the image credit of the Américo picture. Also, please link Colegio Preciosa Sangre (2nd paragraph) to w:Colegio Preciosa Sangre, Pichilemu. Thanks. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 01:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Without a credit, I don't see how the image can be fair use. Who is the photographer/rights owner? Does his management have a press pack? --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The image was originally from Commons, where it was uploaded as own work by User:Wenoby, who later was discovered to be a serial copyvio uploader. The thing is, I uploaded the file again locally just so the article doesn't looks so bad with a red link. The picture source is at the file description. It could be added. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 22:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)