Talk:In Malaysia's high court, pathologist testifies Kim Jong Nam was killed by weapon of mass destruction

Editing

@Darkfrog24: if you want to edit it, remove the review tag.
acagastya PING ME! 11:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll assume you mean the cholinesterase update from this morning. I used to mark the article "development" and then switch it back to "review," but this bumped it to the end of the line, and, at least at that time, that appeared to affect the order in which it was reviewed. I had a lot of articles age out while I was doing that, so I stopped.

Did you experience an edit conflict this morning? Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:23, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Alternative to removing from the review queue, one could add {{editing}} to the top.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes I do that, but this wasn't a big job. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

no, I wasn’t going to review and didn’t encounter an ec, but I don’t think any reviewer would want to review an article which is marked for review by he author is still editing it.
acagastya PING ME! 20:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

That's a good point. If one is considering undertaking a review (which, come think I was was considering first thing when I got up this morning, right around when the edits were made), it can be a real warn-off to see the article is actively changing atm. --Pi zero (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

experience is a good teacher. If you remember, I asked you about editing articles after submitting, when I first joined Wikinews.
acagastya PING ME! 23:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

There's "actively edited" and then there's "a day passed, so I changed the 'todays' to 'Mondays' and updated the paragraph on yesterday's testimony. We have a small review team, reviews take time, sometimes during that time new sources are published, so I can and should incorporate that information where appropriate. Nature of the beast. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:51, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely, nobody's arguing against the edits themselves. The question is how to optimize the interaction of the edit action with perception by reviewers. --Pi zero (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
I don’t think you got what I was say. At the same time, I am convinced pizero and I, we are talking about the exact same thing. <evil grin/> @Pi zero: shall we try the etherpad once? Most of it would be off wiki, with a edit history that isn’t really helpful. But we, as in you and I should try it once. Just to know if it is a good idea, and what should be done for improvement. I have already tried with numbermaniac. Time saver. But there are some things you would not like. Willing to try?
acagastya PING ME! 03:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

There. I used the editing tag and did the updates when you two are likely to be off-Wiki. That oughtta do it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

FYI, it is very rare that none of us is off-wiki at the same time. And believe me, I spend more time on-wiki than not. Time zone plays its part, too. Looks like my comment affected you a lot. But I told just so that we could save time.
acagastya PING ME! 07:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Sometimes the things you say affect me a lot. Don't worry, this was not one of those times. Dealing with complaining isn't fun but you kept it on topic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 10:33, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I took the basic comment as a suggestion, rather than a complaint. An advantage of the {{editing}} tag is that it can more crisply define when the article is being worked on; in particular removing the {{editing}} tag is a sort of "okay, go ahead and review it now" declaration. --Pi zero (talk) 11:38, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Review status

In a lengthy review session this evening, I've verified the first five paragraphs, and the first sentence of the sixth, leaving five paragraphs (less one sentence) not yet verified.

Observations thus far:

• Some passages were decidedly similar to sources, at a sentence/paragraph structural level. There should be no resemblance; I made some edits to try to reduce some particularly problematic similarities, but I can't do much about such things without disqualifying myself from reviewing the article. Such solutions ought to be avoided by using totally dissimilar structure, which would be entirely beyond reviewer's purview. High-quality synthesis text thoroughly rearranges the material, so a synthesis passage is likely to contain information from distant points in the sources, while information that started in a single source passage is apt to end up widely scattered in the synthesis; all done smoothly, with thoroughly unforced arrangement.
• I had several severe problems with verification, eventually resulting in removal or correction of text; these are expensive in review effort, with the expense multiplied by the number of sources (which in this case is high).

--Pi zero (talk) 03:29, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4353371 [Passed]

Revision 4353371 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Difficulties with distance-from-source and verification, as noted above. There was one additional tweak for distance in the second segment of the review, and a bit of difficulty re what Kim Jong Nam was up to after leaving North Korea, which I suspect might not have been a problem if another previously published Wikinews article had been listed under Related news. What with one thing and another, this review took much longer than it ought to have. Contributing factors likely included the large number of sources, and the sorts of difficulties mentioned (as I've mentioned, satisfying oneself that a large number of sources do not verify something is expensive). 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 4353371 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:26, 7 October 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Difficulties with distance-from-source and verification, as noted above. There was one additional tweak for distance in the second segment of the review, and a bit of difficulty re what Kim Jong Nam was up to after leaving North Korea, which I suspect might not have been a problem if another previously published Wikinews article had been listed under Related news. What with one thing and another, this review took much longer than it ought to have. Contributing factors likely included the large number of sources, and the sorts of difficulties mentioned (as I've mentioned, satisfying oneself that a large number of sources do not verify something is expensive). 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.