Talk:Gunman alleged loose on Yale campus

Review of revision 2184927 [Passed]

Revision 2184927 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: No, it doesn't meet the 3/3 rule, but it's breaking....so I'm going to stretch the rule just a smidge. --Bddpaux (talk) 19:22, 25 November 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 2184927 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: No, it doesn't meet the 3/3 rule, but it's breaking....so I'm going to stretch the rule just a smidge. --Bddpaux (talk) 19:22, 25 November 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.

Yeah, genuinely breaking stories can be just a bit stretchy. One thought, or food for thought anyway: as an alternative to adding a sentence like that, one might perhaps publish without it and then make (but not sight) the addition immediately after publication, as a proposed addition for someone else to review. That way, one can stretch just a little bit more on length, in exchange for stretching a lot less on magnitude-of-change-by-reviewer. Probably a good exchange. --Pi zero (talk) 19:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Very smart, actually........when you think about it, the breaking temp reads like this: "This article is breaking news, and may change rapidly as new information becomes available. You may want to periodically refresh this page for updates.".....so, one would assume that THIS VERY ARTICLE will morph, grow, shrink, get modified....etc.etc.etc. Thusly your suggestion would work splendidly. --Buddpaul (talk) 22:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

• and, see, interestingly....the REAL story has morph'd into this: http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-yale-gun-1126-20131125,0,7371009.story

so, for me......this is a good learning moment.....what now?? --Buddpaul (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The first story was breaking, has broken and has now morph'd into this.....so, how do we evolve this little article into a good solid, long-term article. --Buddpaul (talk) 22:12, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The headline of the article, as published, is unfortunate since it could reasonably be taken to present the gunman as fact, although the actual article content correctly attributes the claim to the university. Unfortunate.

The article could be renamed, if we're careful: the article cannot change focus, but if the headline could be tweaked slightly, as long as it can reasonably be seen as simply more accurately reflecting what the article presents as its focus, that's doable. (And the article itself does present it as an attributed claim.)

It would be appropriate to add a bit (perhaps one sentence?) to the end of this article.

If the cancellation of the lock-down were itself newsworthy, one could write an article about that, and once published, we have a template for linking an article to a later article that updates the story. --Pi zero (talk) 22:55, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

For the headline, how about inserting the word "alleged" after "Gunman", so it would read

Gunman alleged loose on Yale campus

If I hear no comment (objection or otherwise), I may do that (though I wouldn't sight the rename) before I go to bed tonight. --Pi zero (talk) 23:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds splendid to me. Once again, the oddness of how to deal with stories that are REEEEE-AAAAALLLLLLY breaking......as in 'happened mere minutes ago'. Admittedly, I certainly did my part to contribute to this teeny little cluster-muck. --Bddpaux (talk) 01:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Part of being a reviewer is the joy of knowing one will have contributed to everything that goes sideways.

And yes, breaking stories are a different sort of beast, and one that's an awkward fit for our workflow. --Pi zero (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• I've renamed the article as discussed above, and submitted update edits. This is where it matters that, per policy, updates to a published article are permitted within 24 hours after publication provided that no addeded sources are dated after the publication date of the article. --Pi zero (talk) 05:26, 26 November 2013 (UTC)