Talk:Lebanon child abduction charges against mother may be dropped in exchange for custody

Review of revision 4207056 [Not ready]

Revision 4207056 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Needs to be established; see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: When did the focal event take place? The lede doesn't say. See the advice on question "when" at WN:Five Ws and H. Please sort the Sources section into newest-to-oldest order (per the Wikinews:Style guide). If this loses freshness, apparently we expect further developments in this story early next week on which it could be refocused. 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 4207056 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:24, 15 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Needs to be established; see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: When did the focal event take place? The lede doesn't say. See the advice on question "when" at WN:Five Ws and H. Please sort the Sources section into newest-to-oldest order (per the Wikinews:Style guide). If this loses freshness, apparently we expect further developments in this story early next week on which it could be refocused. 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.

Changes made but 'freshness' debatable

Hi - I've made the suggested changes to referencing and included a time of event in the lede as asked.

I think the question of freshness, however is debatable. I submitted the story less than 24 hours after the event....And there appears to be no other Wikinews stories published on the topic. I believe the current information needs publishing before the continuation of legal proceedings on Monday so that readers know where everything stands currently.

cheers, Liv —The preceding comment was added at 23:56, 15 April 2016

@Liv UOW: Freshness is about the state of the article when published, not when written. We're not grading articles on how well written they are, we're assessing articles for possible publication to a global audience (we're carried by the google news aggregator as a news site, not as a blog); the output is what we must care about. --Pi zero (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Completely understand - There must be a million and 1 articles constantly being considered, so it'd be hard to review them all quickly enough. I still do think that this background is necessary though, as no other info on the subject is on the site - perhaps with a shorter update article after the defense hearing on Monday.

Liv.

@Liv UOW: There's no reason a later article can't include all of this background (if, that is, it's verifiable and "in your own words" — I haven't actually checked those things yet). Inverted pyramid structure is flexible enough for such things.

I'm worried, looking forward at another review of this, because just in the last hour or so I've noticed that one of these sources is paywalled (The Australian). We don't allow pay-to-read sources; unfortunately all, or at least most, articles in The Australian are paywalled, as are those in The New York Times and at least many of those in The Wall Street Journal. Best to avoid all three of those. (I look forward to the day when we have a semi-automated reviewing assistant to check some of these simple things earlier; it sure would have been nice to know about the paywall problem on the 14th.) --Pi zero (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Ah, that's annoying about the Australian. I used a few of the news-sources to corroborate each other, so if this version isn't published, and I submit an article on Monday including the defense of the plaintiffs as the main lede, I can leave it out and look for new sources.

Should I remove it now? Also, just FYI: I just added to this version a current piece of info about charges potentially being dropped if Faulkner gives up custody and "never" takes the children back to Australia. It doesn't definitively mean changes for the 60 Minutes crew, but may have some affect. Thanks, Liv

@Liv UOW: The pay-to-read source has to be removed; there's no point holding off removing it. If there is any text that depends on it, please do remove that text at the same time (or find another source for it).

When was the new offer made? If verifiably recent it could help with freshness. --Pi zero (talk) 02:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: The offer was made today. I've structured it into my lede now.

Have also removed the Australian reference and used another source for the new info.... Hope to hear from you soon!

@Pi zero: I was also wondering if I should change the title to incorporate the new aspect to the story? I'm not sure how to do that.....

@Pi zero: Another development that I've added to the story: Faulkner's lawyer has said that she DID use money provided by 60 Minutes to fund the abduction operation....60 Minutes original intention for the money remains unidentified. This is also today's news.

@Pi zero: Also, I've been trying to add inter-wiki links and failed miserably...None of the pages I try to link to exist...It's my first attempt at writing for wiki and I can't seem to get all the codes right. just so you know...

@Liv UOW: Yes, the headline should address the same focal event as the lede does. Changing the lede = renaming the article; there should be a control bar at the top of your browser window, and way over on the right side of that should be a dropdown menu, with moving/renaming the article as probably the only thing on it.

On cursory inspection it looks as if the wikilinks are under control now.

Btw, when you leave a comment here, end it with two dashes and then four tildes, "--~~~~"; the wiki software automatically expands that to a signature with wikilinks and UTC date. (Well, it expands the four tildes to the sig; the two dashes are just window dressing.) --Pi zero (talk) 11:47, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Yes, figured out the links and the headline. Hope it's looking closer to publish now...Any other suggestions? hope this is right...--Liv UOW (talk) 12:58, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Liv UOW: It looks as if the next move is mine (or some other reviewer's, but atm probably mine). A full review is called for. I'm hoping I can do that a little later this morning (it's about 9am where I am). --Pi zero (talk) 13:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Review in progress

For some strange reason, the SBS site isn't responding at all for me. Strange. I remember having no trouble with it earlier when I determined it was syndicated from AAP. Just gonna have to work around it. --Pi zero (talk) 15:10, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Now working.

Btw, for future reference, keep in mind that while using more sources to increase article quality is great, using more sources should be done with deliberation since it greatly increases difficulty of review — the reviewer has to read all the sources, and process them in various other ways as well. --Pi zero (talk) 15:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Yes, all the sources are linking to the information I researched now...weird. I'll keep in mind the issue with sources. Thanks. As a uni student, we're basically told to cite as many sources as possible, so I'm in the habit I suppose. For a 300-500 word piece, is 4 or 5 sources more appropriate? --Liv UOW (talk) 22:15, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Liv UOW: It depends on the piece, of course; I wouldn't care to put a specific ratio of word-to-source count. William Saturn, who does very cool political pieces like this, has developed a habit of embedding html comments to indicate which of the many synthesis sources is used for which fact (a style he developed in the last US presidential election cycle, as a matter of survival: he did big monthly articles with lots of synthesis and some original reporting, and they really would have been overwhelming to review without that help — thus).

Congrats on publication, btw! :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 22:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I'll take a look at that. On other platforms, I've always linked in-text to direct sources, but I read that wiki doesn't do that. Had a bit of a hard time getting my head around it but I think I know where to go from here now. And thanks for your help. --180.181.102.139 --Liv UOW (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4207386 [Passed]

Revision 4207386 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Lost some stuff from near the end; perhaps some of that was in The Australian. Had difficulty extracting material from the last three sources; not entirely certain whether I actually used material from all three of those. 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 4207386 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Lost some stuff from near the end; perhaps some of that was in The Australian. Had difficulty extracting material from the last three sources; not entirely certain whether I actually used material from all three of those. 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.

Some issue?

This article is on the top of latest news on the main page while the Olympics news was published later. Why so?
14.139.242.195 (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2016 (UTC)