This article was originally created by user: Jluow; having originally created without being signed in (mistakenly). Please take this into consideration during the review process
The headline, lede, and body of the article should all have the same focus. Here the lede focuses on something specific and fresh — though it doesn't answer basic question when, which is key in establishing in the lede that the focus is specific and fresh — but the headline and body don't focus on that specific event. It is probably altogether possible for the same content in the body to be focused on the specific event, if it's rearranged and somewhat reworded for inverted pyramid style. Start by discussing the focal event for its own sake, rather than as an incidental detail in the big picture, and then pan out to provide more of the big picture as background. Potentially the same content, presented mildly different (the size of the technical change could be surprisingly small, with a big difference in sharpness of focus).
Sources in the Sources section are to be listed from most recent to least recent, as specified in the Style guide.
Dates are specified relatively, per the style guide.
Btw, the sourced used this time have been used, but for future reference — keeping in mind that studying larger numbers of sources much increases the size of the reviewer's task — it is sometimes possible to use past Wikinews articles instead of external sources for historical background, with labor saves to both writer and reviewer. The Wikinews articles get listed in a separate Related news section rather than the Sources section (see the style guide), and the beauty of it is that since our license allows our material to be reused freely provided credit is given, which it is by the citation in Related news, text from the earlier articles doesn't have to be paraphrased at all, but can just be pulled in with whatever minor changes are wanted to fit it into the structure of the new article.
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.
The headline, lede, and body of the article should all have the same focus. Here the lede focuses on something specific and fresh — though it doesn't answer basic question when, which is key in establishing in the lede that the focus is specific and fresh — but the headline and body don't focus on that specific event. It is probably altogether possible for the same content in the body to be focused on the specific event, if it's rearranged and somewhat reworded for inverted pyramid style. Start by discussing the focal event for its own sake, rather than as an incidental detail in the big picture, and then pan out to provide more of the big picture as background. Potentially the same content, presented mildly different (the size of the technical change could be surprisingly small, with a big difference in sharpness of focus).
Sources in the Sources section are to be listed from most recent to least recent, as specified in the Style guide.
Dates are specified relatively, per the style guide.
Btw, the sourced used this time have been used, but for future reference — keeping in mind that studying larger numbers of sources much increases the size of the reviewer's task — it is sometimes possible to use past Wikinews articles instead of external sources for historical background, with labor saves to both writer and reviewer. The Wikinews articles get listed in a separate Related news section rather than the Sources section (see the style guide), and the beauty of it is that since our license allows our material to be reused freely provided credit is given, which it is by the citation in Related news, text from the earlier articles doesn't have to be paraphrased at all, but can just be pulled in with whatever minor changes are wanted to fit it into the structure of the new article.
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.
Tbh, had I realized at the start of this review the size of the collective problems with it, I likely would have not-ready'd it. Over five hours is more than an hour per paragraph of the submitted article. Some things to keep in mind going forward:
The reviewer has to read the sources, so more sources means more labor to review. When using many sources, it's good to provide notes to help the reviewer understand what information was taken from which source; this may be done on the collaboration page, or one might embed html comments in the article <!-- like this --> and just leave a note on the collaboration page letting the reviewer know to look for the embedded html comments.
Distance from source (i.e., too similar to source) was a problem here and there. Even when you figure some passages don't have to be changed, look for a fundamentally different way to say them; it's a good habit to be in.
Do not write unattributed analysis into Wikinews articles. Write hard facts only; using attribution, it's entirely possible to report about analysis, or opinion, provided the attribution is to somebody relevant, because reporting that somebody said something is reporting a hard fact. There's more to it than simply not endorsing the analysis or opinion. The point is also to encourage the reader to think about what to believe, and to help them make informed judgements about what to believe, and letting them know who said things furthers both parts of that agenda.
I had to pull an entire paragraph because it was unsourced. Likely the source was simply left off the list.
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.
Tbh, had I realized at the start of this review the size of the collective problems with it, I likely would have not-ready'd it. Over five hours is more than an hour per paragraph of the submitted article. Some things to keep in mind going forward:
The reviewer has to read the sources, so more sources means more labor to review. When using many sources, it's good to provide notes to help the reviewer understand what information was taken from which source; this may be done on the collaboration page, or one might embed html comments in the article <!-- like this --> and just leave a note on the collaboration page letting the reviewer know to look for the embedded html comments.
Distance from source (i.e., too similar to source) was a problem here and there. Even when you figure some passages don't have to be changed, look for a fundamentally different way to say them; it's a good habit to be in.
Do not write unattributed analysis into Wikinews articles. Write hard facts only; using attribution, it's entirely possible to report about analysis, or opinion, provided the attribution is to somebody relevant, because reporting that somebody said something is reporting a hard fact. There's more to it than simply not endorsing the analysis or opinion. The point is also to encourage the reader to think about what to believe, and to help them make informed judgements about what to believe, and letting them know who said things furthers both parts of that agenda.
I had to pull an entire paragraph because it was unsourced. Likely the source was simply left off the list.
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.
