Talk:Indiana legislators vote for state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage

This article has major problems:

• The lead has basic problems because you don't tie the article to an actual event. What's the news?
• The draft article has basic problems with Wikinews style. (I made a few basic fixes to point out some of the problems. Others remain)
• I don't see any original reporting, notes or comments.Crtew (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see any current sources either. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:53, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

• The PIE CHART currently in the article doesn't have a source listed on it. Remember, that is a must in your graphics work. Crtew (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Phone interview with Myranda Wanden

“I think it [the senate passing the bill] is a step in the right direction to have the amended bill pass, since it grants more liberties than the original. But at the end of the day, I think it's still bad because it fails to legitimize us as human beings, since it's trying to deny us basic rights.”

“I think the rest of the country is moving towards being more open and accepting about gay marriage. I think Indiana, which is a conservative red state, saw this and wanted to resist the changing tide. I think it caused fear in many legislators, but I definitely don't think it's reflective of a majority of the Indiana population.” ==

These are the notes I collected during a phone interview with Myranda Wanden, program director at Indiana Youth Group, an organization that provides support and advocacy for LBGT teens and young adults. Rachristia1 (talk) 23:14, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I submitted my sources to Scoop. Rachristia1 (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sources

Most pressing issue is that you need two sources to back up today's news, which should not be difficult for you to get. Order all sources in reference section according to Wikinews style. Separate external links (non Wikimedia Foundation sites), which should be used rarely. Did you really use all of these? If you didn't or if referenced info was removed, delete those references. If you did, point out to the editor which sources were used and where in the body of the text they were used. The number of sources makes a review difficult. Crtew (talk) 23:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2409430 [Not ready]

Revision 2409430 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The article is currently presented as synthesis, but I'm uncertain whether this is so. As presented, it has only one source for the focus; we expect two corroborating soures for synthesis focus. There appear to be OR notes on the collaboration page, and some material has been sent to scoop. If this article involves OR, there should be an {{original}} tag in the Sources section; and if material has been sent to scoop, the reporter's notes on the collaboration page should say so. There are an overwhelming number of sources listed. This makes review much, much more labor-intensive (remember, it's volunteer review labor and we're generally short of it). Hence our policy prohibition against listing unused sources. Some sort of guide to which sources are used where in the artile would be helpful; if some sources aren't used, please remove them; and if some of them are simply additioal links, move them to an External links section after the Sources section. Note Crtew's comments, above. 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 2409430 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The article is currently presented as synthesis, but I'm uncertain whether this is so. As presented, it has only one source for the focus; we expect two corroborating soures for synthesis focus. There appear to be OR notes on the collaboration page, and some material has been sent to scoop. If this article involves OR, there should be an {{original}} tag in the Sources section; and if material has been sent to scoop, the reporter's notes on the collaboration page should say so. There are an overwhelming number of sources listed. This makes review much, much more labor-intensive (remember, it's volunteer review labor and we're generally short of it). Hence our policy prohibition against listing unused sources. Some sort of guide to which sources are used where in the artile would be helpful; if some sources aren't used, please remove them; and if some of them are simply additioal links, move them to an External links section after the Sources section. Note Crtew's comments, above. 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.

Fixed some, what else?

I updated the article with another very recent source to support the first paragraph and I deleted three sources from the list. I'm new to this whole process, so what else do I need to do?

Review of revision 2414128 [Passed]

Revision 2414128 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Cut some things I didn't find in the sources, a bit that was somewhat analysis, and most of an entire paragraph that was mostly copypasta from a source. Given the entire context of the situation, I've chosen to accept the OR quotes; however, the materials sent to scoop do not provide significant documentation beyond the notes on the collaboration page. Documentation should provide additional information about where the article content came from; that's rather the point. There's evne some precedent for complete transcriptions of phone interviews; meta-information about how the quotes from the conversation were captured (audio? handwritten notes? other?) certainly should have been provided. See the detailed history of edits during review; if the reasons behind any of those edits are not sufficiently explained by the edit summaries, by all means, ask. 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 2414128 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:15, 20 February 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Cut some things I didn't find in the sources, a bit that was somewhat analysis, and most of an entire paragraph that was mostly copypasta from a source. Given the entire context of the situation, I've chosen to accept the OR quotes; however, the materials sent to scoop do not provide significant documentation beyond the notes on the collaboration page. Documentation should provide additional information about where the article content came from; that's rather the point. There's evne some precedent for complete transcriptions of phone interviews; meta-information about how the quotes from the conversation were captured (audio? handwritten notes? other?) certainly should have been provided. See the detailed history of edits during review; if the reasons behind any of those edits are not sufficiently explained by the edit summaries, by all means, ask. 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.

Add hidden categories

Category:Rachristia1 (Wikinewsie) Category:Miharris (Wikinewsie)