Talk:Police arrest train passenger for a 16-hour loud cellphone conversation

Review of revision 1233419 [Failed]

Revision 1233419 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Some of the sources used are not the most reliable. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Is this really newsworthy of inclusion on this site? Verifiability: Not ready: See comment about sourcing. NPOV: Not ready: Concerns regarding use of some of the wording, needs copyediting from previously uninvolved users. Style: Not ready: Questionable use of grammar, missing articles, the word "the" is missing in key places, making for an odd reading. 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 1233419 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Some of the sources used are not the most reliable. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Is this really newsworthy of inclusion on this site? Verifiability: Not ready: See comment about sourcing. NPOV: Not ready: Concerns regarding use of some of the wording, needs copyediting from previously uninvolved users. Style: Not ready: Questionable use of grammar, missing articles, the word "the" is missing in key places, making for an odd reading. 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.

Review of revision 1235675 [Failed]

Revision 1235675 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 10:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: I was unable to verify the quotes from the "etiquette expert", whatever one of those is. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed 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 1235675 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 10:34, 24 May 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: I was unable to verify the quotes from the "etiquette expert", whatever one of those is. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed 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.

Review of revision 1235683 [Passed]

Revision 1235683 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1235683 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:46, 24 May 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Isn't this article stale?

The article effectively ended on May 19; adding a blog post posted May 23, an opinion piece, doesn't update the story IMO. What's the deal? Is the "window" actually an extra four days after original publication? Further, the last source addition, an opinion piece dated March 23, added nothing new to the article and seems to be added in order to to add a newer date an already stale article. It provided no UPDATED information. Is this a model to be followed for the future? It is more and excuse to muse on Australian manners and "young people these days" that a fact piece.Mattisse (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Article stale and POV

• Lana Sweeten-Shults. "Sweeten-Shults: Cellphone transit nightmare shows decline in people's appropriateness" — Times Record News, May 23, 2011 - source added four days after the event.
• This source was added four days after the last source in the article. It is not a news article but an opinion piece. If you add information from the opinion piece, you should make that clear: What was the information that it "added", considering it was not a news piece?

• Also, since the incident happened in the U.S., why are they no U.S. sources? Why is the preoccupation all with Australian and UK sources? Are there no U.S. sources? This gives the article a POV slant. The article is not totally accurate from a U.S. point of view, since the 39 year old woman broke no U.S. policies. Amtrak does not have the same language/policies etc. as the U.K./Australian articles seem to think. This is POV, an article without serious attention just for the sake of getting an article published with a snappy tittle, it seems to me. It needs to be verified by a U.S. source. Mattisse (talk) 21:27, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

POV?

Unbalanced reporting. Why are all the sources for this article outside the U.S., considering that it happened in the U.S.? POV? Mattisse (talk) 19:15, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

• I will decline to comment on that; but, please refrain from introducing location errors which contradict sources. Additionally, "opinionating" is not a valid derivative of "opinion"; one is said to be "opining" or, more neutrally, "commenting" or "remarking" – all active voice and thus preferred. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

In this specific context, "remarking" is more neutral than "opining".

BTW, it's not obvious to me but what Travers may include 39 in "younger generations". (My mother has been known to describe someone in their fifties as "young". :-) --Pi zero (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)