Talk:Death toll from earthquake in Syria and Turkey surpasses 20,000
Sources edit
@SVTCobra, only the Forbes source says the death toll has passed 20,000. The CBS and Guardian ones are from yesterday and say 12,000 and 15,000, respectively. --Heavy Water (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, each moment, it seems, the numbers go up. If you want to add https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2023/02/09/turkey-earthquake-live-updates-death-toll/11218360002/ it says 21K. I would add it myself, but don't want to cause an edit conflict as it is under review. SVTCobra 01:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I removed the tag, I'm not making any edits right now. Heavy Water (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I added USA Today for the number only. SVTCobra 01:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- The article was basically written yesterday from the first two sources, but today the number jumped so much I used Forbes (and now USA Today) to update the number. The rest is pretty much intact from previous. SVTCobra 01:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I removed the tag, I'm not making any edits right now. Heavy Water (talk) 01:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Notes for Gryllida edit
Earwig's findings of similarity were mostly quotes and the sources' headlines, which were listed in the article, of course. I did make this edit for distance. I then began checking for verifiability and encountered the problem mentioned above. --Heavy Water (talk) 01:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- That was resolved, I made this minor edit to remove repetition, curly quotes, and add nuance from a source. Heavy Water (talk) 04:59, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm going to publish this now, @Gryllida, as it's very time-sensitive; by what the experts are saying, a few more hours and this would be out-of-date. I am, of course, still wishing to hear any remarks you may have about my review of this article. Heavy Water (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Review of revision 4708688 [Passed] edit
 |
Revision 4708688 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: No substantive edits needed; publishing right now per talk page, we can't afford to wait. It's great that we're covering this massive event (and tragedy), @SVTCobra. 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 4708688 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:10, 10 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: No substantive edits needed; publishing right now per talk page, we can't afford to wait. It's great that we're covering this massive event (and tragedy), @SVTCobra. 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. |
Review of revision 4708696 [Not ready] edit
 |
Revision 4708696 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: No substantive edits needed; publishing right now per talk page, we can't afford to wait. It's excellent that we're covering this very important event (and tragedy), @SVTCobra. 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 4708696 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: No substantive edits needed; publishing right now per talk page, we can't afford to wait. It's excellent that we're covering this very important event (and tragedy), @SVTCobra. 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. |
- Oh no. I don't know what just happened there. I checked "pass" on all boxes, but it appears we have duplicate entries. Fortunately it did not go to the feed. --Heavy Water (talk) 05:12, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Review of revision 4708701 [Passed] edit
| |
Revision 4708701 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: No substantive edits needed; publishing right now per talk page, we can't afford to wait. It's excellent that we're covering this very important event (and tragedy), @SVTCobra. 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 4708701 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: No substantive edits needed; publishing right now per talk page, we can't afford to wait. It's excellent that we're covering this very important event (and tragedy), @SVTCobra. 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. |
- OK, that worked. Ignore the not-ready above, I don't know what happened to EzPR there. --Heavy Water (talk) 05:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- The first time I saw HW as reviewer. Congrats to both (SVT for you article being published and HW for being as reviewer). --223.191.34.114 (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Actually I comment it, forgot to log in. --DRC-B5 (talk) 05:29, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. It was not my best work. But it felt important that Wikinews covered this event which is surely the biggest news since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I had to make the focal event about the death toll as the quake itself was nearing stale territory. Overall, it was a bit rushed and short. Thanks for reviewing. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- I think it was good. I got very nervous for a second when I saw I had accidentally made a passing and failing review, thinking it had affected the feeds (it had not). My pleasure to review, although I must say that...me reviewing an article of yours felt...very strange. --Heavy Water (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- @SVTCobra, I forgot this last night, but Forbes is semi-paywalled. They let you read four articles (likely per month) if you don't have a subscription. Fortunately, I don't read Forbes so that was my first free article. Heavy Water (talk) 16:51, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Good to know. Thanks. SVTCobra 16:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. I was just given the reviewer right, hopefully staleness will become less prevalent in the near future. Heavy Water (talk) 05:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks. It was not my best work. But it felt important that Wikinews covered this event which is surely the biggest news since Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I had to make the focal event about the death toll as the quake itself was nearing stale territory. Overall, it was a bit rushed and short. Thanks for reviewing. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)