Talk:Revenge killings follow shooting of Karachi politician

Review of revision 1070960 [Failed]

Revision 1070960 of this article has been reviewed by Skenmy (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: No sources NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Needs conforming to WN:SG 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 1070960 of this article has been reviewed by Skenmy (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: No sources NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Needs conforming to WN:SG 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.

Research

I think this is the story ("http://www.thenews.com.pk/top_story_detail.asp?Id=30473") as published on the website of The News International, the biggest paper in Pakistan. Reliable I think and well written so that's one source. An article from the Associated Press, hosted by Google News, mentions the assassination of Raza Haider as the most high profile in a series of political slayings so that's two ("http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hkiMxbHNH0BqgpWA2ZG6VD6wVTmAD9HCF6I00"). Incidentally both sources say his death was on Monday the 2nd, while the article has it on the 3rd. I'm gonna go with the two sources and change it. I'll post these two sources and edit the article for style as well as filling it out a bit.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by FireLyte--spyre (talk • contribs) 09:49, 4 August 2010

Headline

I am not sure if the headline should be changed to reflect the new content of the article. I am going to leave it since I thing it is adequate at least. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 11:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that is a much better headline FireLyte--spyre (talk) 13:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Last Source

I cannot find an author for the last source ("http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=254591"). The article only says "By our correspondent". I'll just have to leave it authorless since I can't find out who it is by.FireLyte--spyre (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of sources don't credit authors. It is ok to leave 'author' blank in those cases (unless a news agency is credited.) --InfantGorilla (talk) 12:38, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks. And thanks for all your help of the newbie =D. I guess the article is ready now as far as I can see. Unless I missed something. Just needs an independent review. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well written

This is a good first article (do you write for other websites?)

It would be helpful if the article attempted to briefly explain the role of the MQM, and also why it is thought that the murders are revenge killings (it is connected with the victims' party affiliations, isn't it?)

That would make the article more accessible to readers like me who don't know the politics of Pakistan.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 13:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No I don't write for other websites I'm just getting into stuff like this, I'm glad its a good first article though, it's encouraging :).

I'll do some more research and add those two things in. I was just being careful about moving off topic or making it too involved. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 13:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Assumptions

While copyediting, I brought in a couple of "facts" (name of party, national coalition) from the BBC article, and made a couple of assumptions about spelling and meaning. Could you check I got those right, please? --InfantGorilla (talk) 13:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The name of the party is right definitely. I'm trying to check the national coalition fact but not getting anywhere. It is remarkably difficult to find that stuff out but maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. I've read it and it certainly reads ok and the meaning seems perfect. I'm sure the coalition is right if it is from the BBC but I'll try and check anyway.FireLyte--spyre (talk) 14:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The only confirmation of that I can find is also from the BBC. Looks like there was an election in 2008 and the ANP and MQM are the second and third most minor parties in it respectively. I would add this Source on but it isn't direct reference for the article just confirmation. Although from the same publisher I can't find anything better: ("http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7257525.stm") FireLyte--spyre (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

There are very few English language sources about Pakistan on the web (at least that I can find on Google.) Anyway, I read a couple of articles that leave me without doubt that MQM and ANP are coalition partners with PPP, both nationally and in the government of Sindh Province, and that it is a very uneasy partnership.

• http://www.thenews.com.pk/print1.asp?id=254552
• http://www.samaa.tv/News16688-MQMPPP_coalition_survives_another_rift.aspx

(No need to add these as sources, unless we want to mention the provincial coalition, but that will be several pages for a reviewer to read for one small fact. I just needed to do some research to assure myself that I had read the BBC article correctly, as mistakes can have real life consequences.)

--InfantGorilla (talk) 15:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Timing

I suppose I didn't think of it like that. Just out of interest what are the usual timings for wikinews articles? How long are articles kept for and how long should they take to develop before being published? I just wanted to know how it works in practice and how long I should take if I want to edit a story. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 15:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘

1. Articles that are published are kept for ever. They can change more (and be reviewed again) within the first 24 hours after publication.
2. Review works much like many other wiki activities: you wait until a reviewer comes along who is interested in your article, has not contributed to it, and has time to do the review. Usually this is 12 to 24 hours. There are six articles in the queue right now - one has been waiting 39 hours and one just two hours. Some newer ones were reviewed and published before anyone picked the 39 hour one. The first you see is a pass/fail, though sometimes kind reviewers will do some copyediting instead of failing immediately on style.
3. Don't let an unpublished article go stale or abandon it. It will be deleted after a two or three day warning (though if it doesn't grievously infringe policy, an admin can "undelete" it at move it to 'user pages' for your reference or for you to update at your leisure.)

• Is that too much detail? Please ask again (at Water Cooler perhaps) if I am unclear or I misunderstood your question.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 16:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

No that's fine that's all I wanted to know thanks =) Just learning the rules around here and that is perfectly clear FireLyte--spyre (talk) 16:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yesterday WN:SG

I was having trouble understanding your last edit but I think I get it now. So if it was yesterday, tomorrow or today you don't date it or say Monday, Tuesday or whatever. Ok thanks. I thought you would state the date for future readers but this makes more sense. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

We don't state the date. The dateline is all that helps future readers. I wasn't involved in the original decision, which makes sense. When we follow the house style (whether we agree or not), readers get a more consistent experience. --InfantGorilla (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Neutrality

There a few problems with neutrality in this article. They are quite subtle, but with time you will learn to spot these yourself - it just needs practice. It is also a little unclear in parts.

"...which may explain why there has been so much violence and arson as well as so many revenge attacks as a result of Raza Haider's death." We can't make judgements like this; we must simply state the facts, though we can do so that makes it easy to draw conclusions on wether such a judgement is - or isn't - warranted. I'm also a little confused as in to why that would be the case; are you accusing the party of murderous corruption?

The party's former and current political direction (quasi-socialist, liberal etc) is something we should maybe attribute - who says this is how it should be? Something like "The Very Good News Agency describes the party as this, but notes that it was originally that when founded in its present form" would be good. Also, "...it is a the largest liberal political party in Pakistan and maintains a liberal, progressive and secular stance on many issues both political and social," reads kinda like a party press release.

"This reflects the violent, fractured and brutal nature of politics in the city." Yeah, I can agree with that, but it is our opinion that politics there are violent, fractured and brutal. Again, quote someone else as saying it.

"The trigger for the most recent wave of violence and attacks is the assassination of Raza Haider, but due to the nature of Karachi politics the exact motive behind Haider's murder is unclear." I'm not happy with this paragraph, especially this sentence. It basically follows on from my last above; namely, this is our judgement. Wikinews should not be promoting any particular take on events. "...supporters of the parties are accused of..." - who accuses them of these things?

For these reasons, the article cannot yet be published. You'll have to move sharply to get it in shape before it goes stale; once you get it ready for review again feel free to see who's online and start bugging them to review it for you. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 15:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• I have cut most (not all) of the political background from the article.
• It takes some of the flow and depth out of the article, but unless FireLyte has time to properly research and rewrite the judgements with attributions (I don't) this is perhaps better than nothing to get it published before it goes stale.
• I replaced one of the sentences I cut with this:

This week's wave of violence and attacks began with the assassination of Raza Haider, but due to the nature of Karachi politics the exact motive behind Haider's murder is unclear.

... that seems factual, rather than a judgement, in my mind.

• Hope that helps. If not, revert it, and try rewriting the background material and analysis according to Blood Red Sandman's recommendations.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked over your changes yet, but I'm happy with them based on your description. I'm about to write out a correction notice for another article, then I'll take a look here and maybe create some time to do a review. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you're wanting the orgiginal author to check over your work. In that case, I won't review it until that has taken place (if I manage to review it at all). Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:32, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright I'm gonna try and get it in shape before 19:00 UTC. If I haven't got all the judgements sourced and the article isn't neutral by then I'll keep it as it is and bug someone to review it as you recommend. Thanks for the pointers I think I still need to get the hang of remaining neutral.

It's done. And just about on time too. I'm gonna bug someone in the IRC to review it now. FireLyte--spyre (talk) 19:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1073202 [Passed]

Revision 1073202 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:29, 7 August 2010 (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 1073202 of this article has been reviewed by Killing Vector (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:29, 7 August 2010 (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.