Talk:German authorities confirm first case of novel coronavirus in Germany

Image

@Gryllida: The caption should be part of the image markup, and should say as-of-when. --Pi zero (talk) 00:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Done! Gryllida (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Headline

How about "German authorities confirm first case of novel coronavirus in the country"?
2401:4900:2776:57B2:D5B4:4DF4:C14F:C8AC (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Raised to breaking review (by me)

I put {{breaking review}} instead of {{review}}. This not the usual news, WN cover. Everything should be timely here. (I could be wrong.) --Don't call 911 (talk) 14:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@WhaatTF: You may be right, about the breaking status. Technically, news is "breaking" if updates calling for changes to the article could be rolling in at any moment; for example, if there's been a major disaster and the official death toll keeps getting revised upward, that would be breaking news (which is why when reporting a story of that sort we try not to build the death toll into the headline, so if we revise the article during its first 24 hours after publication we don't also have to rename it). Mainstream news, especially TV news, often misuses the term "breaking". There's a grey area in the Wikinews review infrastructure, that we can only tag an article for rapid review by calling it "breaking". I'm not sure about this one; I'll have to make that call at the end of the review, if this passes. --Pi zero (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Good! I hesitated to use the tag at first. Thanks. --Don't call 911 (talk) 08:07, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4543514 [Passed]

Revision 4543514 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm letting the breaking status stand, for now. 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 4543514 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:17, 28 January 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm letting the breaking status stand, for now. 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 added new infectees (if that's a real word.)

I put new developement in the story. Do we change title of the article to reflect that? --Don't call 911 (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@WhaatTF: Ah! See my remarks below (I started a separate section). If there's a temptation to change the headline, that's suggestive of a change of focus.

The word is perfectly clear, so no worries; as it happens: wikt:infectee. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 14:25, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

three more cases

@WhaatTF: There are two major constraints (that occur to me atm) on the updating of an article within the first 24 hours after publication.

• Under no circumstances may a source be added whose date is after our date of publication.
• The focus of the article must not change: an article with a different focus would be a different article, and therefore ought to have a separate review process for publication. The fact that the addition something like doubled the text volume of the article is also suggestive (and bears on whether the focus is effectively changing). It seems for such a big new development a separate article is called for.

Btw, relative date is relative to the date of publication; so, "yesterday" for this article will always mean "Monday, January 27, 2020". --Pi zero (talk) 14:12, 29 January 2020 (UTC)