Talk:Detroit teachers stage sickout to protest working conditions as Obama visits

Review of revision 4152278 [Not ready]

Revision 4152278 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Problematic; see below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The first paragraph — the lede should be a short, to-the-point paragraph briefly summarizing the focal event, succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the WN:five Ws and H about the focus. Currently, the first paragraph is much too long, going into details that ought to be in a later (such as second) paragraph; and some key facts are well down in that over-long first paragraph, so that a reviewer can't fix the problem by, say, simply inserting a paragraph break after the first or second sentence. Amongst the key facts here seem to be the sickout today, the fact it's part of an ongoing phenomenon, and the fact Obama was visiting today. The changes would be too much for an independent reviewer; if I tried to fix the problem I'd then have to disqualify myself from review. There are a very large number of sources. Are all of them used? If so, fine, but one ought to be sure one has a good reason to use such a large number of sources since a reviewer has to read and study all of them, significantly increasing the size of the review task. It can be quite helpful, when using a large number of sources like this, to provide some notes on the collaboration page (aka talk page) about what the different sources are used for. One of the sources is the New York Times. Unfortunately, NYT puts all their articles behind a paywall for readers in North America (which is where I am), which arguably disqualifies it under Wikinews policy (because our policy explicitly forbids use of pay-to-read sources) and, even if it isn't actually disqualified, I can't access it to verify things in it so if I were reviewing I'd have to delete it, laboriously figure out what cannot be verified without it (which is very difficult when there are very many sources, as here), and cut out whatever wasn't verified. It's highly recommended that writers not use NYT. 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 4152278 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Problematic; see below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The first paragraph — the lede should be a short, to-the-point paragraph briefly summarizing the focal event, succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the WN:five Ws and H about the focus. Currently, the first paragraph is much too long, going into details that ought to be in a later (such as second) paragraph; and some key facts are well down in that over-long first paragraph, so that a reviewer can't fix the problem by, say, simply inserting a paragraph break after the first or second sentence. Amongst the key facts here seem to be the sickout today, the fact it's part of an ongoing phenomenon, and the fact Obama was visiting today. The changes would be too much for an independent reviewer; if I tried to fix the problem I'd then have to disqualify myself from review. There are a very large number of sources. Are all of them used? If so, fine, but one ought to be sure one has a good reason to use such a large number of sources since a reviewer has to read and study all of them, significantly increasing the size of the review task. It can be quite helpful, when using a large number of sources like this, to provide some notes on the collaboration page (aka talk page) about what the different sources are used for. One of the sources is the New York Times. Unfortunately, NYT puts all their articles behind a paywall for readers in North America (which is where I am), which arguably disqualifies it under Wikinews policy (because our policy explicitly forbids use of pay-to-read sources) and, even if it isn't actually disqualified, I can't access it to verify things in it so if I were reviewing I'd have to delete it, laboriously figure out what cannot be verified without it (which is very difficult when there are very many sources, as here), and cut out whatever wasn't verified. It's highly recommended that writers not use NYT. 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: I amended the lede to make something more lean as an overview. Re: the sources: the first and last ones are primary documents--should they stay? I removed the NYT link. The Michigan Radio and second Detroit Press links just provide context from previous strikes. If they are not necessary, then please feel free to remove them. Is this a good start? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:14, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@Koavf: It looks like it addresses things pretty well. Thanks for the notes about the sources.

When you say they're primary documents — did you draw on them? If you did, they do belong in the "Sources" section; if not, and you mean them to be available for readers to look at, they should be moved to a separate "External links" section after the "Sources" section.

Remember to resubmit for review when you believe it's ready for review. For my part, I'm honestly not up to another review tonight; it'd likely be nine or more hours from how before I'll be able to do another review, though of course somebody in another time zone might pick it up sooner. (I'm on UTC-5.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:45, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4153994 [Passed]

Revision 4153994 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: When I'd verified all I could from the sources, I had three major passages left over. Knowing the history of the article, which involved the removal of a source but not, at the time, removal of any content, I suspect that may be the cause of the problem. Not-readying the article would have been a very reasonable response, but, given the context and history of this, I chose instead to cut out the unverified passages. It was admittedly a difficult decision either way. By the time I finished the verification process I was no longer sure whether or not I'd actually drawn on those last two sources, so I didn't feel safe removing them. The state school reform/redesign office was hard to know how to handle. By moving that document back up from External links to Sources, it would be possible to verify that it was formed, and that it was tasked with determining which schools weren't achieving; but I saw nothing at all in the document about improving such schools. It's my impression that the office is tasked with turning administration of those schools over to the state, but I wasn't able to confidently verify even that from the document, and I think you'd find plenty of educators who would in fact disagree that the purpose is improvement (I think this is a key point in why one person was quoted in a source talking about an attack on education). Since the passage in our article didn't seem to work if one took out the part about improvement without replacing it, and since replacing it seemed to be highly problematic — just about qualifying as OR — I decide the only thing I could do without a not-ready/revision cycle would be to cut it. In its current form this is a pretty minimal article that doesn't go into any depth on the issues involved. The issues involved are, in fact, quite deep, and it is probably hazardous to go halfway in because one would be likely to create a skewed picture through omission — as with the passage I cut about the reform/redesign office, where there is doubt as to whether or not improvement is intended. 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 4153994 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:38, 21 January 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: When I'd verified all I could from the sources, I had three major passages left over. Knowing the history of the article, which involved the removal of a source but not, at the time, removal of any content, I suspect that may be the cause of the problem. Not-readying the article would have been a very reasonable response, but, given the context and history of this, I chose instead to cut out the unverified passages. It was admittedly a difficult decision either way. By the time I finished the verification process I was no longer sure whether or not I'd actually drawn on those last two sources, so I didn't feel safe removing them. The state school reform/redesign office was hard to know how to handle. By moving that document back up from External links to Sources, it would be possible to verify that it was formed, and that it was tasked with determining which schools weren't achieving; but I saw nothing at all in the document about improving such schools. It's my impression that the office is tasked with turning administration of those schools over to the state, but I wasn't able to confidently verify even that from the document, and I think you'd find plenty of educators who would in fact disagree that the purpose is improvement (I think this is a key point in why one person was quoted in a source talking about an attack on education). Since the passage in our article didn't seem to work if one took out the part about improvement without replacing it, and since replacing it seemed to be highly problematic — just about qualifying as OR — I decide the only thing I could do without a not-ready/revision cycle would be to cut it. In its current form this is a pretty minimal article that doesn't go into any depth on the issues involved. The issues involved are, in fact, quite deep, and it is probably hazardous to go halfway in because one would be likely to create a skewed picture through omission — as with the passage I cut about the reform/redesign office, where there is doubt as to whether or not improvement is intended. 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.

editprotected

{{editprotected}} CAT:Economy and business —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lbertolotti (talk • contribs)

• Done, but it's a bit borderline. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)