Talk:Pakistan: At least 18 killed, others wounded in suicide attack at Balochistan Sufi shrine

Review of revision 4353132 [Not ready]

Revision 4353132 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Most of the content here is copied and scuffed up here, from the sources. One is expected to write news in their own words. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4353132 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:16, 6 October 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Most of the content here is copied and scuffed up here, from the sources. One is expected to write news in their own words. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

@Pi zero: Since things are too close to sources, can you please hide the content and history? I would re-write this article now.
acagastya PING ME! 18:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Done. --Pi zero (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Copyright

Dear, what copyright infringement did you find here? I mean, the article was written in the pure tone of English dailies published in Pakistan.--Asadwarraich (talk) 07:01, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Asadwarraich: the problem is not with the quality of English. Sentences were too close to what was written in the sources. Almost like it was copied from the source and changed a few words. You have to write it by yourself in your own words.
223.237.232.44 (talk) 07:05, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I did not do it. All English dailies are written in the same tone as I did here. Nothing was copied from anywhere. I wrote this article in my own wording. Perhpas, there's been some mistake.--Asadwarraich (talk) 07:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

You better check the wording of 'Dawn' or 'Express Tribune'.--Asadwarraich (talk) 07:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

@Asadwarraich: We've checked and it looks exactly the same. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

photos

@Pi zero: There isn't much in the sources which would take time. The first three sources are about the current event. The last two are about the attacks that took place in February and November. The link(s):

1. [1]
2. [2]
3. [3]
   acagastya PING ME! 22:21, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Do not publish it

Rename the article before publishing. Long title is not a valid rationale for renaming it to something which doesn’t say something unique, or where it happened.
103.254.128.50 (talk) 18:49, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Not your call. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 18:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree, this title is entirely unacceptable. --Pi zero (talk) 18:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Quinton Feldberg: this might sound rude, very rude, but why the hell do you think I can not comment about it? I have every right to raise the concerns. For I am the (co-)author of this article, I do have rights for asking how I want my article’s title to be. Besides, anyone is free to speak what is wrong with it since Wikinews is collaborative project. And what I am addressing is basic thing of journalism. I personally hate when I find news articles with incomplete information, do you think I would let it happen to my articles? You would probably not know about Balochistan, and perhaps would not care. If this had happened in Paris, or Las Vegas, you might even have kept the city names in the headline. But Wikinews is for global audience. You don’t have the first world advantage here. For it is possible for readers to know what Balochistan is, and mentioning that would help those group. For those who do not know, these two three words of information would actually reduce ambiguity. Pakistan might not be a first world country or as big as the US, but still, bringing up Balochistan reduces guess work and the place’s history and politics itself has a role.
103.254.128.50 (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Uh, crap. This happened while I was in the process of reviewing. What title would you suggest? — Gopher65_talk 18:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gopher65: I feel I was allowing myself to be infected by the general atmosphere of alarm being spread about. Although it's not an ideal headline, I think we'll survive it. --Pi zero (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I misread it. Doh. --Pi zero (talk) 18:55, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Or did I misread it? Or was it renamed... Bleah. I worry too much. (But, Quinton Feldberg, when one has genuine concerns about an article before publication, one should post them on the talk page, so the reviewer is aware of those concerns. Not mentioning them is a disservice to the project. --Pi zero (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Please log in when contributing. It makes your edit history easier to follow. No need to sock as an IP. Thank you. Quinton Feldberg (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I don’t agree on this. Sometimes, time and message matters more than who is saying it.
103.254.128.50 (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

---

Alright, how would everyone feel about this: "Pakistan: At least 22 killed, 30 wounded in Balochistan suicide attack". It keeps away from the "+" sign, which was my biggest objection in the previous title, and it's only one word longer. — Gopher65_talk 19:12, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gopher65: How about adding to the end of the current headline "at Balochistan Sufi shrine"? --Pi zero (talk) 19:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gopher65: I went ahead and moved it, on the theory if we're going to do that we should do it sooner rather than later. --Pi zero (talk) 19:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that addresses the concerns 103.254.128.50 brought up. — Gopher65_talk 19:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Alas, an additional change to the lede prompted an additional headline change. --Pi zero (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Why do you need to edit while logged out. Why divide your edit history? Quinton Feldberg (talk) 20:09, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@Quinton Feldberg: you would not understand what has happened in the last 90 minutes or so, (talking about the renaming thing), but this is not "socking" as such. I am not voting against publishing the article. And as a matter of fact, reviewers do not entertain someone's plea to not publish an article for silly reasons. This, however was not silly. It has much deeper meaning than you might feel (two years ago, I might not have understood this because lack of experience) Coming to the part why I did not login, and fragmented my edit history: I don't care for my edit history, or number of edits. I would have to login at the middle of the night, and write the message, when the article could have been published any moment. Renaming an article after publishing is something we don't want to do. I am not from a country where internet connectivity is great. Besides, in this corner where I sleep, neither I get good signal on phone, or uninterrupted Wi-Fi connectivity. Best is to deliver the message before it is too late. Even if someone else would have raised this issue, it would not have mattered. Edit history vs greater good for the project, I won't care for my edit history. I have written some 30+ (published) articles without logging in (even though I had an account), do you think I would bother of a couple of edits? But for the mess that was made right now, I had to use my laptop, and to get stable internet connection (without using hotspot from my phone), I had to boot Windows (because HP and proprietary drivers), and I don't like booting Windows too, (just so to let you know) but then, we are looking for the greater good, right now.
acagastya PING ME! 20:25, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4353870 [Passed]

Revision 4353870 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Copyright issues appear to have been addressed nicely by Acagastya. Thanks Acagastya. Definitely newsworthy, and juuuust within the three day limit at the time of this review. Tone is as neutral as it can be for an event like this. Style: Article is barely long enough, containing little detail (though few details are available to be had). I'm going to pass it because no one seems to know much about what happened here other than: where it happened, range of death count, and who claimed responsibility. Verifiability is the big problem with this article. Even now, 3 days after the event, new articles are being written with conflicting dead and wounded counts. However, the range given has solidified at about 22-ish dead and about 30-ish injured, which is both more than some early reports, and much less than others. I think this is the best we're going to get for now. I added a single source with updated death counts, but the counts are close enough to some of the more reliable early sources that I'm taking those early sources as confirmation of the counts. They were within the normal error bars of early reports. I also shortened the title, because the one that it had before was a bit on the long side. 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 4353870 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:54, 8 October 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Copyright issues appear to have been addressed nicely by Acagastya. Thanks Acagastya. Definitely newsworthy, and juuuust within the three day limit at the time of this review. Tone is as neutral as it can be for an event like this. Style: Article is barely long enough, containing little detail (though few details are available to be had). I'm going to pass it because no one seems to know much about what happened here other than: where it happened, range of death count, and who claimed responsibility. Verifiability is the big problem with this article. Even now, 3 days after the event, new articles are being written with conflicting dead and wounded counts. However, the range given has solidified at about 22-ish dead and about 30-ish injured, which is both more than some early reports, and much less than others. I think this is the best we're going to get for now. I added a single source with updated death counts, but the counts are close enough to some of the more reliable early sources that I'm taking those early sources as confirmation of the counts. They were within the normal error bars of early reports. I also shortened the title, because the one that it had before was a bit on the long side. 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.