Talk:North American Leaders' Summit 2016: leaders affirm strong relations

Add topic
Active discussions

Review of revision 4228391 [Not ready]Edit

Hello! I'm the creator of this article.
Thank you for your review! I have a couple of questions about your above review, though:

  • I don't consider "later today" to be anything in the future that an article such as 'Spaceship to visit Andromeda Galaxy in 21xx' does. My only reason for reporting this about 2-3 hours before the actual event was merely to give readers background information in order to know that it will occur: the thing about the summit is that the meeting is private, so any details that a reader would like to hear from article written about an event written in the past (such as "What was said?") will be very hard if not impossible to acquire. I can however remove the future summit analysis if necessary. My only thing with the future analysis was to show readers that this may not happen again for another year, which could add sentimentality to the summit that occurred today (also because the 2015 summit did not occur either). I, however, just joined Wikinews and now seem to understand the strong formalities for article writing (which I will take into account in future articles that I may write).

  • I appreciate desired definitive language, but the article can say that the terms will end because - even though Trudeau can be elected again - his term maximum is 8 years, or two terms of 4 years each. Therefore his first term will end in that year (I said "[...] and possibly continue into 2023" for that reason). If it didn't, he wouldn't go through another federal election. As far as Peña Nieto's term, it's a 6-year single term, so - again - his term will end in the year 2018 (as he was elected in 2012).

  • When it comes to political candidates, I have bases for my statement. If you're talking about my statement's exclusion to other parties, it's well-founded. This is because most and/or all of the electoral votes have been shown that they will either go to the Democratic or Republican Party. As far as candidates, we can gaze over Trump as he is the only candidate in the Republican Party with a significant amount (if at all) of delegates that has not ended his campaign. As far as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders (which I can assume is what you are questioning), and as unlikely as I and most media sources (and polled Americans) can tell, I'll recant my statement about one of them replacing Obama (knowing full well that if Hillary Clinton gets nominated, I won't be able to change the article).

Thanks again for your time! Unfortunately, I believe I'll have to recreate the entire article to encompass the "past" standard.

If you can see anything of the article that can be salvaged (A.K.A. that is not controversial or "bad") please let me know.

With regards,

Keithman3 (talk) 02:06, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, I can offer a few comments.
  • The time required for Wikinews review isn't zero; in fact, it's not even predictable. Your article was fortunate, it got reviewed quite promptly, but already the event you said was in the future wasn't (afaict).
  • The difference between future and past is not subtle. Contingent events in the future are not objective facts, and to present them as objective facts would be objectively false. If you reason that some contingent event in the future is really, really likely, it's still objectively false to say you know it's going to happen — as well as your having used analysis to get there, which should tell you something's gone very wrong because you shouldn't be doing analysis (it's against our neutrality policy).
  • An anticipated future event cannot be the focal event for purposes of newsworthiness; you need at least one, usually two sources bearing witness that the event actually happened (not just anticipating it).
I have to struggle with an impulse to point out various possibilities you're overlooking in your various future predictions, since what matters in this case is not what possibilities you're overlooking but the fact that things are future rather than past. --Pi zero (talk) 04:12, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello again!
I don't see this getting any of us anywhere so I will have to recreate the article and wait for future review.
Thanks for the great discussion!

Keithman3 (talk) 13:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

@Keithman3: please use the date format as per Wikinews style guide for example, June 30, 2016.
acagastya 14:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
@Pi zero:
I've made a new article and strongly suggest deleting this one for my new one. Keithman3 (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I did a history merge. --Pi zero (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4229005 [Not ready]Edit

I've added a source for the second sentence of the lede. Any other background material improperly sourced will have to be explained to me by yourself (if there is anything else wrong).
One other thing I'd just like to point out is that your calling of the United States' demonym as "arrogant" does not seem to exercise neutrality in your review statement and corrections of the use "American". The problem with the term "US" is that it is a noun - not an adjective - and adding it in a sentence with two words (which are both nouns and adjectives) does not conform with the topics mentioned in the sentence, not only leaving the readers confused but also making the sentence incorrect. I think if the term "American" is replaced with "US", then "Canadian" should be replaced with "Canada" and "Mexican" should be replaced with "Mexico".
I'm not going to pursue this topic for fear of being blacklisted but all I will say is that though the term may be politically improper, it is the term and it's almost definitely going to stay that way. I will, however, leave your correction to US for my reason brought up at the beginning of the sentence.
If you could, I would appreciate a re-review given my addition of the source that you asked for.

Keithman3 (talk) 22:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding a source is a plausible action to address the problem, but if you think there are still things in the article that aren't verified, you should be either removing those things or sourcing them. In particular,
  • where did you get your information? The cited sources aren't just a link farm, they should accurately record where you got your information from.
  • everything in an article should be straightforwardly verifiable from the cited sources. You should be trying to make it easy to verify everything from the cited sources. It takes a reviewer a lot more time, effort, and stress to determine something isn't in the sources than to determine it straightforwardly is, so you should especially be trying to avoid that happening.
A general observation, food for thought. I've noticed, over the years, a number of signs that foretell a newcomer is likely not to prosper at Wikinews, though their effects may take a while to add up. Treating review as an adversarial process. Assuming by default they have nothing to learn from, have no reason to learn about, Wikinews policies and practices. Not valuing the volunteer effort reviewers put into reviewing their submissions. Thinking it likely a Wikinews reviewer would be acting in bad faith, or incompetently.
  • If you consider the article ready to resubmit, do so. --Pi zero (talk) 01:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
To me it seems like Wikinews is a place where one "can't" do this or "shouldn't" do that, which is why I don't seem to fit in due to my previous thought that Wikinews was about allowing and encouraging users' input, but I guess it relies more on policies, which is not a bad thing (don't get me wrong): it now changes the way I must write articles in the future.
I don't think there are any unverified things but I was wondering if you did. I don't understand the problem here: the sources do say where I got my information from, I really don't know how to prevent you from more stress because you just tell me - as a newcomer - what to do without exactly telling me how you'd like it to be done. I'm sorry, but I can't edit the article based on that problem because I simply don't know how to.
I believe I've already expressed my gratitude to you reviewing my article. I didn't think you were incompetent or acting in bad faith: I was only believing that it was your opinion that the demonym "American" was arrogant, as in the policies - which I did in fact read - I saw nothing about the demonym "American" in particular: you can point that out to me if you'd like.
One more thing, I'm not treating review as an adversarial process or like an argument - this thing only stemmed from when I tried to clarify some of the subject matter that was talked about in your original review.
I feel like you're being a bit unfair: I'm not trying to defame you or anger you - I'm only trying to get my article ready by trying to clarify some points that you bring up in your reviews. Unfortunately it doesn't seem like there's any point getting this article ready, as the event will have been a long time ago.
I'll submit the article again (assuming it will be denied, once again) and hope for the best.
Keithman3 (talk) 02:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
@Keithman3: I too am worried about the freshness margin of this story; I'd review it now except I really don't have the sharpness of mind for a full review by this time of night. We'll see how it seems in the morning. Meanwhile, I'll offer some thoughts here.
I think we're having trouble understanding each other; a two-way problem. It's encouraging to me that we seem to be both still trying, by this point.
Apologies if I've come across brusquely; I sense there's something you haven't quite grokked yet about Wikinews (it'd be surprising if you understood everything perfectly, since you've not been here long) but I'm not exactly sure what, and I'm turning toward general remarks that seem like they might be useful though I don't necessarily expect any given one of them to be spot-on.
We have a steep but short initial learning curve at en.wn. I've been a Wikipedian; Wikipedia is heavily bureaucratic. Wikinews shuns red tape; we cut to the chase. We have a very short time to achieve something like what Wikipedia calls a Good Article; we don't have time for complicated or subtle rules. In the initial learning curve is a small set of basic principles; just about all the advice I write endlessly in review comments to newcomers is in WN:PILLARS. Once you're past the initial learning curve, things get way easier — though there are always more refinements to learn.
I put a lot of effort into my review comments; if I knew how to write them better, I would. I do have to remain independent of the writing of each article, to avoid disqualifying myself from review.
A Wikinewsie gathered some stats a while back about not-ready reviews. Articles by experienced Wikinewsies almost always pass on the first review (barring accidents, like a dozen submissions per day glutting the review queue), and if they don't pass on the first review, they almost always either get abandoned (because the writer knows they aren't going to work) or they pass on the second review (because the writer knows how to fix the one problem and there aren't others lurking). Multiple not-ready's of an article are a newcomer thing, and this is the most likely way for an article to lose freshness during the review process, from the delays of all that back-and-forth. It can be very valuable back-and-forth, because the writer is learning to clamber up the initial curve, but the particular article involved might well not make it to publication. The goal, of course, is for the writer to get past the initial curve to where they can submit articles that pass on the first review, minimizing both aging of the individual article and time sink for the writer and reviewer.
You won't find the bit about "America" in the written rules. We don't write down detailed stuff like that; the Wikinews:Style guide, note, is really quite a compact document; it's possible to read it straight through in a single session, which you can't say for the Wikipedia MOS, let alone the AP Stylebook. It's just a particular detailed point that happens to have been extensively discussed here; there are such things floating around, like "never describe someone as a 'terrorist' in Wikinews's own voice". My use of the term arrogant was meant to be descriptive of how it comes across, and I stand by the description (although, btw, neutral is what we aspire to make our articles; imo it's not feasible to expect people on a crowdsourced volunteer project to not have opinions, the point is to be able to produce neutral articles anyway — and recognize when one actually has such a COI that one has to recuse oneself). Another Wikinewsie (who, unlike me, isn't from the US) has been known to use the humorous term "Amerikan" (edged humor, that). --Pi zero (talk) 04:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking this is still plausible, providing it gets reviewed fairly promptly. I've made some basic copyedits, I'll be afk for maybe two or three hours, then I hope to get this done (unless some other review beats me to it, of course). --Pi zero (talk) 13:17, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, of course strictly speaking the new source doesn't show the 2015 summit didn't happen... I note [1], though. --Pi zero (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4229284 [Passed]Edit

Sentence fragmentEdit

"The leaders held a trilateral press conference with the media after the summit. During the conference, President Obama scorned presidential candidate Donald Trump, calling his rhetoric - ?" Unfinished sentence.

@ It's been fixed (noting that I did not fix it).
Keithman3 (talk) 00:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Return to "North American Leaders' Summit 2016: leaders affirm strong relations" page.