Talk:Record snowfall in Japan: in pictures

Review of revision 1830087 [Not ready]

Revision 1830087 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. 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: Since the images apparently still lack source data on Commons, it seems appropriate to wait for resolution of the matter. 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 1830087 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:27, 4 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. 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: Since the images apparently still lack source data on Commons, it seems appropriate to wait for resolution of the matter. 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.

Also, there are no reporter's notes here on the talk page. Reporter's notes here should explain what was done, and if material has been sent to scoop, that too should be said in the reporter's notes here. --Pi zero (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Reporter notes

I would count the photos as the original reporting in the article - the small lede (introduction) paragraph state what is happening in the local area and why it is significant as well as being backed up by sources listed. The photographs have their own commentary and the photographing is unique to Wikinews. I contacted the User:Ohgi on Live Chat IRC - and attempts were made to get photos from the Japanese Wikipedia users. Eventually photos were obtained and taken by User:MaksimTack who is based in the Ebetsu city, in Hokkaido who took the photos. I was sent a copy of the photos by e-mail approximately half-an-hour before they were uploaded to Wikipedia by User:Oghi. --Computron (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Copyright

I've dealt with the copyright problems now and will put this for re-review now. --Computron (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1831057 [Passed]

Revision 1831057 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This review did not go as smoothly as hoped. We did get the copyrights ironed out. There were fact-checking problems (see edit history). The record appears to have been broken more than a week ago, so as far as a current focus goes, the weekend snowfall is it — and only one source verified that. Ordinarily I wouldn't consider adding a second source as a reviewer, but here very little information is being drawn from those sources, far less in fact than a minimal article's worth, and the pictures are the main substance. There was also, however, a bit of a disconnect between the intro that presents as current event the weekend snowfall, and the pictures that (though the majority were taken this weekend) seem to showcase more the accumulation than specifically this weekend's fall. Some words were needed to segue from the intro to the pictures, and after some thought I provided such words, making them wildly generic so as to avoid introducing content (recalling a Wikinews reviewer's observation, some time back, that if there is only one way to do something, there's no moral difference between the reviewer doing it or requiring someone else to). 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 1831057 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: This review did not go as smoothly as hoped. We did get the copyrights ironed out. There were fact-checking problems (see edit history). The record appears to have been broken more than a week ago, so as far as a current focus goes, the weekend snowfall is it — and only one source verified that. Ordinarily I wouldn't consider adding a second source as a reviewer, but here very little information is being drawn from those sources, far less in fact than a minimal article's worth, and the pictures are the main substance. There was also, however, a bit of a disconnect between the intro that presents as current event the weekend snowfall, and the pictures that (though the majority were taken this weekend) seem to showcase more the accumulation than specifically this weekend's fall. Some words were needed to segue from the intro to the pictures, and after some thought I provided such words, making them wildly generic so as to avoid introducing content (recalling a Wikinews reviewer's observation, some time back, that if there is only one way to do something, there's no moral difference between the reviewer doing it or requiring someone else to). 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.