Talk:Massive earthquake hits Indonesia, no tsunami risk

Review of revision 1465538 [Not ready]

Revision 1465538 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:23, 11 April 2012 (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 Tsunami warning has been lifted. That can count as either or both (it actually is both) of a verifiability problem or a staleness (hence, newsworthiness) problem. The sources all say it was 8.6, and even the title of one of them as listed in the Sources section says 8.6. Moreover the one whose title is listed here as saying 8.7 has in fact been replaced on its news site by one that says 8.6. It's generally risky to built the magnitude of a quake into its headline based on initial estimates that stand a very good chance of being revised. Admittedly it's hard to be sufficiently specific without (especially when reporting about an earthquake in an area where earthquakes are fairly common). 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 1465538 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:23, 11 April 2012 (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 Tsunami warning has been lifted. That can count as either or both (it actually is both) of a verifiability problem or a staleness (hence, newsworthiness) problem. The sources all say it was 8.6, and even the title of one of them as listed in the Sources section says 8.6. Moreover the one whose title is listed here as saying 8.7 has in fact been replaced on its news site by one that says 8.6. It's generally risky to built the magnitude of a quake into its headline based on initial estimates that stand a very good chance of being revised. Admittedly it's hard to be sufficiently specific without (especially when reporting about an earthquake in an area where earthquakes are fairly common). 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.

The main problem with this article is the fact that no one was there to review it. In this kind of report, fast reviewing is essential as facts change quickly and an article can only state what was known at that time. I've fixed whatever I can, though most of the sources have changed drastically, so I don't know whether they removed some fact mentioned in the article. Either way, I wish we had more efficient reviewers here... ~ Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 15:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1465820 [Passed]

Revision 1465820 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There's definitely an issue with getting reviewers onto these stories fast. With that said, complete rewritings of initial sources tend to annoy me too (I appreciate our own policy does allow that within 24 hours). It's definitely two sides of the same problematic coin, although obviously only the reviewer side is anything we can, and need to, really respond to. As for 'massive', ideally we'd attribute but in fairness an 8.6 is... Well, pretty massive. There comes a point where something is so big relative to other comparable events that there's just no disputing it. 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 1465820 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There's definitely an issue with getting reviewers onto these stories fast. With that said, complete rewritings of initial sources tend to annoy me too (I appreciate our own policy does allow that within 24 hours). It's definitely two sides of the same problematic coin, although obviously only the reviewer side is anything we can, and need to, really respond to. As for 'massive', ideally we'd attribute but in fairness an 8.6 is... Well, pretty massive. There comes a point where something is so big relative to other comparable events that there's just no disputing it. 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.