Talk:Nine jailed over sexual abuse in Bradford, England children's home

Thoughts

@Qwerty number1:

• The lede does not contain a "day" word; see the advice on applying question "when" at WN:5Ws.
• The use of "grooming" in the headline is not going to be understood by a significant segment of readers.

--Pi zero (talk) 01:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4467989 [Passed]

Revision 4467989 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This was missing some required templates. If you aren't using one of our article creation forms, please start doing so; if you are using one, and it's not working right, let us know so we can look into it. Use double quotes for quotation in the body of an article; single quotes for quotation in headlines. As noted above, the term grooming in the headline was opaque to a large segment of our audience. The term grooming appeared to have also been a cause of some confusion in the body of the article; grooming was not the whole criminal activity, it was part of it, so that if the term is used at all this would need to be explained, a significant complication. Much easier to just not try to bring that word into it. It also turns out, afaict, not to have been explicitly mentioned in the charges, making it just that much more complicated if one were to bring it into the discussion. The paragraphs are kind of bullet-like (a little too short, on a regular basis). I'm allowing it this time; but it's something to work on improving, going forward. See the detailed history of edits during review. 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 4467989 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:21, 2 March 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This was missing some required templates. If you aren't using one of our article creation forms, please start doing so; if you are using one, and it's not working right, let us know so we can look into it. Use double quotes for quotation in the body of an article; single quotes for quotation in headlines. As noted above, the term grooming in the headline was opaque to a large segment of our audience. The term grooming appeared to have also been a cause of some confusion in the body of the article; grooming was not the whole criminal activity, it was part of it, so that if the term is used at all this would need to be explained, a significant complication. Much easier to just not try to bring that word into it. It also turns out, afaict, not to have been explicitly mentioned in the charges, making it just that much more complicated if one were to bring it into the discussion. The paragraphs are kind of bullet-like (a little too short, on a regular basis). I'm allowing it this time; but it's something to work on improving, going forward. See the detailed history of edits during review. 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.

Daily Mail considered unreliable and mostly disallowed in Wikipedia

Wikipedia has considered Daily Mail the unreliable source to cite factual info, so DM is mostly disallowed there. How did this article pass the review, and how is DM considered reliable here? --George Ho (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I suppose information from it is confirmed by other sources? Is there any information that isn't? Gryllida (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried finding sources contradicting the DM article without avail. However, I noticed that the DM made the interviewed "girl" unidentified without explaining why. One Daily Express article identifies another girl, who waives her anonymity, but that's also considered "generally unreliable" by Wikipedia community. I found another source, but I'm unsure whether it's reliable or not. --George Ho (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@George Ho: Is there something in our article that appears to be incorrect? If so, we want to know sooner rather than later, and later rather than not at all. Within 24 hours of publication we can fix it; after that we can issue a {{correction}}, which is infinitely preferable to having an error sitting unmarked in our archives. On one hand, note that Wikinews does not have a notion of "reliable source" in the sense that seems afaict to be what Wikipedia means by it: we don't have some sources that we simply take to be always right when they say things; we consider whether any source might be mistaken, or blinded by its perspective, or deliberately propagandizing. On the other hand, I'm not perfect, and it's also true there are some sources we know are especially hazardous either for specific purposes or in general. --Pi zero (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hm... This is an interesting one. Well, George Ho, do you think Wikipedia is right to not rely on Daily Mail? I didn't have any dog in that fight, so to speak, so I don't know the merits of the case, but if no one here thinks it's necessary to disallow it, then the issue is moot.

To answer your question I would say that the article passed review because Daily Mail has not been disallowed here yet. (No reason that couldn't change if it's called for.) Upon a cursory look, it seems to me that the BBC article contains most of the facts used in this Wikinews article. So all it really needs is a source that is independent to confirm the focal event. Daily Mail's probably up for that, at least. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that's kind of what I was saying — no source is above suspicion, even BBC or CNN, depending on the circumstances. If it doesn't smell right, we get more cautious. In this case, I'm quite interested to read what Wikipedia has to say about it — and also rather exasperated by the poor information management by Wikipedia in its article on the Daily Mail, in that while it does note the Wikipedia ban, under Other criticisms, it cites only published external sources, which are in the particular case inferior to the actual discussion archived on Wikipedia — if we were covering such a thing, we would no doubt cite published news articles, but would also provide an obvious link to the RfC (either under External links or under Sources, depending); I don't see any link from the Wikipedia article to the RfC, which means that in this case, Wikipedia's bureaucratic guidelines on sourcing have actually lowered the quality of information being provided to readers. From one of the sources, though, I find I can work backward to the RfC, which is archived at w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 220#Daily Mail RfC.

I do agree the things said about it are pretty alarming; if I can get to it (I've got my hands full with an off-wiki task atm) I'd really like to try to find independent sources for some of the stuff from that source in this article. --Pi zero (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)