Talk:Court rules Massey can appeal US restrictions in mine disaster investigation

Review of revision 1244682 [Failed]

Revision 1244682 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: The article contains substantial parts from Wikipedia. Please don't directly copy them like this. Newsworthiness: Not ready: The event apparently happened in May. I'm sorry, Wikinews publishes articles about events that happened within last week (see {{stale}}). Verifiability: Not ready: The article needs at least two independent sources. NPOV: Not ready: The article, as a consequence of being based on one source, is one sided. Style: Not ready: The article should use Past Perfect verb tense in the content (Present tense in the headline), see style guide for more details. Comments by reviewer: -Gryllida 23:47, 11 June 2011 (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 1244682 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:47, 11 June 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: The article contains substantial parts from Wikipedia. Please don't directly copy them like this. Newsworthiness: Not ready: The event apparently happened in May. I'm sorry, Wikinews publishes articles about events that happened within last week (see {{stale}}). Verifiability: Not ready: The article needs at least two independent sources. NPOV: Not ready: The article, as a consequence of being based on one source, is one sided. Style: Not ready: The article should use Past Perfect verb tense in the content (Present tense in the headline), see style guide for more details. Comments by reviewer: -Gryllida 23:47, 11 June 2011 (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.

The editors on this website are pathetic. Apparently a Scottish University adding "comic studies" as a department is newsworthy, but this is not. It's a report that was released, it's not time sensitive. As for being one sided, I reported on the outcome of an independent objective report, there is no bias there, it's the facts of the report. Also "the substantial parts from Wikipedia" were what I just to added to Wikipedia literally two minutes ago. This is why I left wikinews.Soapy (talk) 23:57, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Not time sensitive? I think you're missing the new part of news. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The facts of this report wont be altered by the passage of a month, whereas say for a bombing attack in Libya a week from now the article could be irrelevant. I have published articles on reports a month after they are released before, see http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Congressional_panel_concludes_Gulf_War_Syndrome_a_legitimate_condition. See Soapy (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't about facts. Facts don't cease to be facts, but news ceases to be news. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 00:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I assure you that this report will be news to almost anyone who reads it, and it's only a month old. Soapy (talk) 00:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Soapy, maybe things were different in 2008, or there were some exceptions (there were times when we didn't even require editor review).. I'm sorry I wasn't active here at that time and I can't explain why that happened. As of now, we require that Wikinews articles are not reports - we only publish articles on events that happened within last week. You may want to re-consider that when writing your next story, we are more than happy to receive your help. -Gryllida 00:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Alright then, you guys have fun with your news service which nobody reads because most of the articles are a joke Soapy (talk) 00:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

OH, and Congressional panel concludes Gulf War Syndrome a legitimate condition has a December 3 source. It's generally "events that happened within last week with recent details that came to light within last 2-3 days", if an article doesn't satisfy either condition, we don't publish it; that article satisfies at least one, and the other one with a large jump over to a few weeks instead of one. -Gryllida 00:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

So if I add a token statement about this http://www.dailymail.com/ap/ApTopStories/201106110745, it will get published is what you're saying? Soapy (talk) 00:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• It might get a pass if it is okay with the rest of the requirements. While we generally don't encourage news stories on events that happened longer than a week ago, if a story is a great work otherwise, it might get a pass. -Gryllida 00:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

It had bloody well better not. The news event must be within seven days, and new information must have come to light within 2–3 days. And it should be actually new information, not just a token republication of information that had been available before. Later than seven days, if new information comes to light, that coming to light would have to itself be the news event.

Our current high standards were a long hard slog to put in place, and that previously published article was late in the period before they were solidly in place. --Pi zero (talk) 00:23, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1244778 [Failed]

Revision 1244778 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: In order to be news, the article must be focused on a recent news event. Apparently the events described in the whole first part of the article are very old. If there's a fresh event, that has to be the focus, and there have to be two sources for it. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Does not have a proper Lede. See also WN:SG#Basic news writing. Comments by reviewer: Was the final report released within 7 days, with new information about it withing 2–3 days; if so, there may be a chance here. Otherwise, see WN:NOT. 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 1244778 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: In order to be news, the article must be focused on a recent news event. Apparently the events described in the whole first part of the article are very old. If there's a fresh event, that has to be the focus, and there have to be two sources for it. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Does not have a proper Lede. See also WN:SG#Basic news writing. Comments by reviewer: Was the final report released within 7 days, with new information about it withing 2–3 days; if so, there may be a chance here. Otherwise, see WN:NOT. 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.

Let's clarify, state of West Virginia released its first report in May, then Massey Energy released its report on June 3, 2010. If anything, we should choose the latter one to report news about, while only a small part of the article can introduce the reader to the preceding events. Even in this case, it would not exactly qualify as news, because the event happened more than a week ago. Sorry. -Gryllida 01:03, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

If there is some sort of newsworthy reaction to the Massey report, that happened within the past day or two, a news article could be about that reaction. It'd have to be a newsworthy reaction, with a couple of mutually independent, reputable news sources. A slim hope, perhaps, but at least that may serve as an illustration of how the freshness criterion works. --Pi zero (talk) 01:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2011/06/10/10greenwire-appeals-court-rules-for-massey-over-us-in-uppe-41569.html says a report was released on June 10, with the June 3 one being "without Alpha's approval" - we could try writing about that. -Gryllida 01:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Might work. With two independent sources for it. --Pi zero (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

---

• Good work in this revision, thanks Mattisse and Soapy. But what we see is the report, accompanied by a few words of the reporter. It may be great to find public's responses, comments of other governmental people, or some more details on events that surround the report publication. Did someone criticize the report? Did any of the sides comment on any of its parts? ..and to add them to the a bit "plain" description of the report itself. -Gryllida 02:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• I agree more is needed. I don't know much about the report nor the legal history of the order or the appeal of the order. So I can't add what you are suggesting. I'm hoping someone clarifies. Mattisse (talk) 03:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

• I concentrated on the recent sources and rewrote the article. Hopefully no one minds, but the recent sources focused on the District Court decision issued Friday, June 10, 2010 and not as much on the report which was the original subject of the article. Mattisse (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1245447 [Passed]

Revision 1245447 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Great work refocusing this piece. Also, a good account of a fascinating - and important - dispute. 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 1245447 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:37, 13 June 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Great work refocusing this piece. Also, a good account of a fascinating - and important - dispute. 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.