Talk:England: Baby born with heart outside body operated on; surviving, three weeks after birth

Review of revision 4370102 [Not ready]

Revision 4370102 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: There's a difficulty with the focus here, which is both a stylistic concern and central to our newsworthiness criteria. The headline apparently identifies an operation as the focal event, though the originally submitted headline also mentioned the 'first time' claim. The only specific recent day mentioned in the lede is Tuesday; what the article says happened on that day is that it was reported she had survived three weeks. She hadn't, actually; she'd survived one day less than that, as she was born by caesarian on Wednesday November 22. But then there's the question of who reported it on that day. The sources did, of course, but under normal circumstances we don't report that someone else reported something. The doctors... may have reported something on that day. Afaics none of the sources said clearly that the hospital said those things on such-and-such a date; nor did they said exactly when the third surgery took place. One of the sources does say (I think) that the second surgery was 7 days after the birth, and that the third surgery was "two weeks" later. Alas, they have to have been imprecise about at least one of those two numbers, since the source articles were published less than three weeks after the birth. (We've had some discussions, in recent times, about the msm (mainstream media) tending to forget that "when" is one of the five Ws.) At any rate, I really feel clarity of focus is needed here. Best would, presumably, be finding a way to establish just when the third surgery took place. Second best, likely, would be establishing just when the hospital made its statement' one could then get away safely with being less precise about just when the surgery happened, though then the headline would want tweaking and I'd really like the reporter to try to do that (so it's not me adding to the headline). In a pinch, one could maybe arrange things by narrowing down the surgery and the announcement as much as one could and then saying that they were reported on Tuesday, though that would want careful handling. If I've overlooked something in the sources, or generally if something is easily overlooked in the sources, it'd be helpful to leave a note here on the talk (aka collaboration) page about just where it can be found. The number of possible approaches here, and the fact that the best solutions would likely require bringing in some additional source, put this outside what I as an independent reviewer could do. A much smaller stylistic point: the first sentence of the lede doesn't mention where in the world this happened. 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 4370102 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:36, 15 December 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: There's a difficulty with the focus here, which is both a stylistic concern and central to our newsworthiness criteria. The headline apparently identifies an operation as the focal event, though the originally submitted headline also mentioned the 'first time' claim. The only specific recent day mentioned in the lede is Tuesday; what the article says happened on that day is that it was reported she had survived three weeks. She hadn't, actually; she'd survived one day less than that, as she was born by caesarian on Wednesday November 22. But then there's the question of who reported it on that day. The sources did, of course, but under normal circumstances we don't report that someone else reported something. The doctors... may have reported something on that day. Afaics none of the sources said clearly that the hospital said those things on such-and-such a date; nor did they said exactly when the third surgery took place. One of the sources does say (I think) that the second surgery was 7 days after the birth, and that the third surgery was "two weeks" later. Alas, they have to have been imprecise about at least one of those two numbers, since the source articles were published less than three weeks after the birth. (We've had some discussions, in recent times, about the msm (mainstream media) tending to forget that "when" is one of the five Ws.) At any rate, I really feel clarity of focus is needed here. Best would, presumably, be finding a way to establish just when the third surgery took place. Second best, likely, would be establishing just when the hospital made its statement' one could then get away safely with being less precise about just when the surgery happened, though then the headline would want tweaking and I'd really like the reporter to try to do that (so it's not me adding to the headline). In a pinch, one could maybe arrange things by narrowing down the surgery and the announcement as much as one could and then saying that they were reported on Tuesday, though that would want careful handling. If I've overlooked something in the sources, or generally if something is easily overlooked in the sources, it'd be helpful to leave a note here on the talk (aka collaboration) page about just where it can be found. The number of possible approaches here, and the fact that the best solutions would likely require bringing in some additional source, put this outside what I as an independent reviewer could do. A much smaller stylistic point: the first sentence of the lede doesn't mention where in the world this happened. 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.

When the announcement was made

I see your point, and struggled a bit with that when I came to write it up. Did you watch the video on the BBC source? I have problems with sound, so was using the subtitles; is there anything pinning down an event in the audio, which includes the doctor speaking? Other than that, I'll search and see if I can find anything. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I did watch it, yes, and the video on the Guardian source. The BBC captions have all the spoken words plus more words that had no sound.

One approach would be to just email the hospital inquiring about the date of the third surgery; but because it's so minor that it wouldn't really count as "OR" for purposes of extending freshness, there probably isn't time. It seems plausible the hospital could have an email around somewhere for press inquiries; if one could get an answer back fast enough, one could leave a note on the article talk page explaining what you did and, for good measure, forward the emails involved to "scoop at wikinewsie dot org". This probably wouldn't be worth an {{original}} source tag in the article's Sources section, if it's just the date confirmation, which is also why it wouldn't extend freshness. --Pi zero (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't do any e-mailing, so I attempted to recify by adding a source. (By the way, I got an error message when I saved about an infinite loop caused by a call of Template:Infobox.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I've seen that claim of circularity, I think, though I've not seen it consistently and suspect it might be spurious. Certainly the Foundation's foolhardy attitude toward wiki markup tries my patience. Thanks for mentioning it, though; it's well to be aware of what mischief they're up to. --Pi zero (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4370218 [Passed]

Revision 4370218 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:37, 15 December 2017 (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 4370218 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:37, 15 December 2017 (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.

Thank you! I spotted a syntax problem that had crept in with a revision and have edited acordingly. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Guardians of the Galaxy, Pirates of the Caribbean, Enchanted and Wreck-it Ralph are Disney movies. Unfortunately, WIR is the only one which didn’t “break the internet” (I hope you got the pun). Best to mention year and type of movie from the next time before publishing. Besides, I am a Disney fan and I would want these details.
223.180.11.236 (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm not Pi zero, but I wrote the article. I don't recall seeing the film categorised in the sources, but I admit it could have crept past me. I'm old enough to think of Disney as primarily an animation studio, and in any case I disagree that readers will want to know, but no harm, no foul :-) I'm glad you didn't add the year, and regard that as even more non-news, but ... still very much a dunce at this kind of writing. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Oh believe me, you never know when you might need that “tiny” bit of information. And for movies, it is better to add the year— it may seem to be not news, but year and/or director can avoid any sort of ambiguity; just like how John Lassater would remind me of Cars trilogy. You would know what I am trying to convey if you write more articles. Archives are very important for any news organisation. Oh by the way, Disney is so vast that presuming it makes only animated movies is totally incorrect.
223.180.21.208 (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)