Talk:North Korea launches "early-stage" hypersonic missile

@LivelyRatification: Can you take a look at the article? The North released a statement about the launch. The statement is the first source. Henrymyman (talk) 00:51, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Henrymyman: Will do! --LivelyRatification (talk) 01:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Henrymyman: Not all that familiar with missiles/weaponry, but it seems to me like there's a dispute as to what was launched. South Korea and Japan claim an SRBM, North Korea claims a hypersonic missile. If that's so, should the headline be phrased more neutrally (NK claims launch of hypersonic missile, something like that) - and whatever the headline is, the lede should probs reflect. So if the headline is about North Korea's claims of a hypersonic missile, it should lead with "North Korea has claimed the launch of a hypersonic missile", instead of "South Korea and Japan claim that North Korea has launched an SRBM" as it seems to now. --LivelyRatification (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@LivelyRatification: You're right. I'll get to modifying. Henrymyman (talk) 01:20, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Henrymyman: Let me know when you're done! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LivelyRatification (talk • contribs)

@LivelyRatification: Please have a look. I may not reply for some hours, but I will continue to edit in around 9-10 hours.Henrymyman (talk) 01:45, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@Henrymyman: I'll take a look now - apologies for how long this has taken! --LivelyRatification (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Length

@LivelyRatification: I fully admit that the article is lacking in details and length. When more details come out and the ROK Army confirms what kind of missile it was, where it was launched from and who may be behind it I'll write a follow-up. Henrymyman (talk) 23:50, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Henrymyman: Might be best to wait on this one - have verified the lede, but the nature of it being, well, unidentified, means that there's not much to report outside of "South Korea said that a projectile was launched" and some context. Also, might be best to use East Sea instead of Sea of Japan in the title, not massively familiar with the standard of naming though I admit. If you'd like, feel free to hop onto IRC and we can discuss more there. --LivelyRatification (talk) 23:54, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@LivelyRatification: I understand. Concerning the name of the sea, it is whether a Korean point of view or an international point of view is used. East Sea is used by North and South Korea, while Sea of Japan is used by Japan and the US. I used Sea of Japan since it is easier to situate where the projectile fell. Henrymyman (talk) 23:58, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

@Henrymyman: Fair point in regards to the sea. In regards to the article, what I'd do is wait a bit for any further development - there's probably plenty of room for development to expand this article. A similar thing happened with Australia: Magnitude 5.9 earthquake detected in north-east Victoria. As it stands, it's probably not suitable on length grounds. --LivelyRatification (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

@LivelyRatification: I'll check on the articles already sourced and other news agency.Henrymyman (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Just let me know when you're ready for me to take another look! --LivelyRatification (talk) 01:17, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4644849 [Passed]

Revision 4644849 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Some statements in the article that weren't verified by sources either had to be removed, or I had to add sources for them myself. It's a small issue, but in future, even if they're just incidental or offhand statements, please do try and cite sources for everything mentioned. Aside from that, some copyediting was necessary but otherwise a good article. 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 4644849 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Some statements in the article that weren't verified by sources either had to be removed, or I had to add sources for them myself. It's a small issue, but in future, even if they're just incidental or offhand statements, please do try and cite sources for everything mentioned. Aside from that, some copyediting was necessary but otherwise a good article. 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.

@LivelyRatification: Can you please clarify what do you mean "or I had to add sources for them myself"?
103.48.106.16 (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

They were things that, in my view, were essential to be included in the article, and were correct, but didn’t have sources backing them up. These were relatively easy to verify, so I found sources for the statements and added them to the article. LivelyRatification (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

@LivelyRatification: Does that include this edit?
117.198.182.67 (talk) 08:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. --LivelyRatification (talk) 08:46, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You cannot do that as a reviewer without disqualifying yourself from publishing this article, @LivelyRatification:. It is not a publishing reviewer's right to do. This article needs to be reviewed by some other reviewer, or recalled. That is not an acceptable thing on-wiki. Any fact cited or added by any author needs to be verified by a reviewer other than themselves.
117.198.182.67 (talk) 08:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright, then. I'll unpublish it and wait until someone else can review it. --LivelyRatification (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

That is not how it works -- it is still on the main page in a published state, it is in the RSS feeds, it would be echoed from Wikinews' facebook and twitter pages, the flaggedrevs mark it as reviewed on that day and well...just on the technical bases, you should have refrained, or at least asked someone before unpublishing. Hmm, the damage is done. Can't be undone now.
117.198.182.67 (talk) 09:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Protected?

@Xbspiro: @LivelyRatification: My recent changes need to be approved. Has someone made my draft protected? Henrymyman (talk) 13:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Probs an error on my part due to the article having been published. --LivelyRatification (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)