We'll see if we can work through the problems and get this published, which would be great if we could manage it. It's difficult under these circumstances, though; Original reporting on en.wn generally requires a lot of preparation before the event, to arrange to gather extensive documentation, and we also recommend getting experience with en.wn reporting before attempting original reporting.
Original reporting has to be documented; it just requires a different kind of documentation than synthesis.
There are no original reporting notes at all provided on the collaboration page. The recommended practice for original reporting is, aim to provide more documentation than needed to verify the event; more is better.
Did you take notes? Where did the information in the article come from? We often use things like a scanned image of handwritten notes, or precise complete transcript of handwritten notes (or, if necessary, of notes in whatever form were taken), uploaded audio or video recordings. If there's some reason the reporter doesn't want to, or shouldn't, make some of the materials publicly available on the wiki, they email materials to scoop (that's "scoop at wikinewsie dot org") and note on the collaboration page. Oh, and if the notes aren't in English, provide them anyway.
Honestly, I can't tell much of anything from the official site, which is listed as a source. I'd need specific guidance for where to look for information, if it's there; this might be done by providing a more specific source citation for a particular page of the web site, or, again, notes on the collaboration page.
I think the images will need to use a different gallery technique; we provide image credit for our images; but that's a detail, compared to the core difficulty of verification.
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.
We'll see if we can work through the problems and get this published, which would be great if we could manage it. It's difficult under these circumstances, though; Original reporting on en.wn generally requires a lot of preparation before the event, to arrange to gather extensive documentation, and we also recommend getting experience with en.wn reporting before attempting original reporting.
Original reporting has to be documented; it just requires a different kind of documentation than synthesis.
There are no original reporting notes at all provided on the collaboration page. The recommended practice for original reporting is, aim to provide more documentation than needed to verify the event; more is better.
Did you take notes? Where did the information in the article come from? We often use things like a scanned image of handwritten notes, or precise complete transcript of handwritten notes (or, if necessary, of notes in whatever form were taken), uploaded audio or video recordings. If there's some reason the reporter doesn't want to, or shouldn't, make some of the materials publicly available on the wiki, they email materials to scoop (that's "scoop at wikinewsie dot org") and note on the collaboration page. Oh, and if the notes aren't in English, provide them anyway.
Honestly, I can't tell much of anything from the official site, which is listed as a source. I'd need specific guidance for where to look for information, if it's there; this might be done by providing a more specific source citation for a particular page of the web site, or, again, notes on the collaboration page.
I think the images will need to use a different gallery technique; we provide image credit for our images; but that's a detail, compared to the core difficulty of verification.
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.
Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
hello, thanks. i have added the references to the particular pages of the festival site and sent a piece of video to scoop at wikinewsie dot org --Antanana (talk) 15:07, 22 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Didn't find a couple of things, and removed them. The sentence with the direct quote could have been replaced with something verifiable from the provided page, but I didn't feel I could do something like that without disqualifying myself from review. Btw, guessing the direct quote wasn't in English, at opportunity we like to use {{translated quote}} (a bit of added value for our readers).
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.
Didn't find a couple of things, and removed them. The sentence with the direct quote could have been replaced with something verifiable from the provided page, but I didn't feel I could do something like that without disqualifying myself from review. Btw, guessing the direct quote wasn't in English, at opportunity we like to use {{translated quote}} (a bit of added value for our readers).
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.
I finally found the direct quote (which, yes, was in English; so much for my theory about that). I'm uncertain it's needed in the paragraph, though; if I'd found it during review (which I should have), I expect I'd have tweaked the earlier text leading up to it. Given the article was published without it, I'm not sure whether to try to restore a modified version of it; giving some thought. --Pi zero (talk) 11:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
thank you very much. as for the numbers 100vs230 [1] - 100 stands for the planned number. 230 is an actual one. they have told us this number during the very ceremony, i didn't happen to film it, but i made a mental note ;) --Antanana (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Who or what is or are this? There's plenty of 'doc' scattered through the article without explanation. Also I note a great many images aren't captioned. It's a great shame these things weren't cleaned up before publication, because this is a really cool topic and the article would have been so much better with these relatively simple steps. BRS(Talk)(Contribs)07:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)Reply
