Talk:Fleetwood Mac cancel upcoming Australian and New Zealand tour

Review of revision 2100595 [Not ready]

Revision 2100595 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not ready: Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Fundamentally, this story did not pass because the newsworthiness was not established. Only in the sixth paragraph is there any sense of time. The lead should clearly explain WHEN the tour was cancelled as the cancellation is the focal news event. The article needs wikilinks to important concepts, often most easily identifiable because they are proper nouns like people's names or place locations. This can be done like this ( {{w|Spain|this}} . More information on how to do this can be found at Wikilinking an article. Here, it was not done for Australia and New Zealand. Other linking styles were used in the body. There is no credit for the photographer of the picture you included on the article. Please add this by putting {{image credit|PHOTOGRAPHER NAME}} in the image description. There is a slight NPOV problem that is not supported by nor treated as fact by the sources. This includes calling the band legendary and saying the tour was highly anticipated. These are almost certainly true but the sources do not say this, and it ends up as either not verifiable or NPOV. Ill-health and diagnoses with cancer seem to be two different things. The more specific version should probably be used for the sake of accuracy. 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 2100595 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not ready: Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Fundamentally, this story did not pass because the newsworthiness was not established. Only in the sixth paragraph is there any sense of time. The lead should clearly explain WHEN the tour was cancelled as the cancellation is the focal news event. The article needs wikilinks to important concepts, often most easily identifiable because they are proper nouns like people's names or place locations. This can be done like this ( {{w|Spain|this}} . More information on how to do this can be found at Wikilinking an article. Here, it was not done for Australia and New Zealand. Other linking styles were used in the body. There is no credit for the photographer of the picture you included on the article. Please add this by putting {{image credit|PHOTOGRAPHER NAME}} in the image description. There is a slight NPOV problem that is not supported by nor treated as fact by the sources. This includes calling the band legendary and saying the tour was highly anticipated. These are almost certainly true but the sources do not say this, and it ends up as either not verifiable or NPOV. Ill-health and diagnoses with cancer seem to be two different things. The more specific version should probably be used for the sake of accuracy. 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.

Review of revision 2101383 [Passed]

Revision 2101383 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: In my distancing from source material, I'm not even totally certain I improved the language, but some of it was just way too close for comfort! Admittedly, however, a'lot of the stuff was just plain old material fact, which can often be very difficult to distance. I place high value on these short, quick articles that just hit the meaningful facts. Also, notably, you worked hard to wikify things. --Bddpaux (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 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 2101383 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: In my distancing from source material, I'm not even totally certain I improved the language, but some of it was just way too close for comfort! Admittedly, however, a'lot of the stuff was just plain old material fact, which can often be very difficult to distance. I place high value on these short, quick articles that just hit the meaningful facts. Also, notably, you worked hard to wikify things. --Bddpaux (talk) 02:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC) 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.

@Bddpaux: The wikification actually appears to have taken a step back. The Australia link which I fixed and made demonstration of was undone for most of the cities. The article does not answer WHEN at all. Did you read the previous not ready review, and check to see if there were local links as opposed to Wikipedia links before publishing? --LauraHale (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I did read your review rather carefully, in fact, and will concede that indeed the lede does fail to answer 'when'. It really should've hit that in a concrete way. I made the decision, however to ready it because we're a long way out from November 10th (which is the TRUE subject of 'what' got cancelled and 'why' it got cancelled). In retrospect, I should've just consulted the source material a bit more closely and slid the 'when' in there myself. Now, as far as this wikifying business goes: Admittedly, I've ALWAYS been horrifically lazy about wikifying here with consistency. The style guide directs writers to wikify their articles, and I've been the worst about expecting reviewers to help with that. I think it greatly strains credulity to make wikifying (doing it, not having done it or not having done it properly) a point of failing/ready'ing an article. Honestly, amidst my click-fest, I think I lost sight of what linked to WP and what linked to WN. It's been clear for a while that you make it a point to place high value on wikifying links that point 'here' and not to the other place. I can't find much clear-cut material in the style guide that backs up your stance on that, but if you point it out I'll consider that for future reference. To be frank, I'd like a seasoned Admin./reviewer to clarify for me: should we push for wikilinks that link here MORE HIGHLY than those that link to WP? Personally, I can see situations, where it's MORE JUSTIFIABLE to link to WP that to here. --Bddpaux (talk) 14:03, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, I'm just batting a 'thousand on missing stuff these days, arent' I? I found this in the style guide: "It is almost always preferable to link to local redirects where they exist rather than to Wikipedia but individual exceptions may be possible. It may occasionally be necessary to link to other projects as well, such as Wiktionary. The {{w}} template has optional parameters to do these things." Now, the fun part would be suggesting when it's more appopriate to link to WP and when to link here. In my opinion, life's too short to worry about that very much. In this instance, I still think it was/is a valuable article. --Bddpaux (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Fwiw: I usually consider adding "when" to the lede an in-bounds action for a reviewer, if it's straightforward. If I'm not-ready'ing the article for some other reason I might well put it in review comments rather than doing it myself. I have no problem with reviewers choosing to not-ready over it. I wouldn't knowingly publish without it, though. Anyway, that's my take on the matter. --Pi zero (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2013 (UTC)