Talk:Rust movie set accident leaves one person dead

Broadcast report

@TheSandDoctor: Haven't seen you around Wikinews before, hi! Are you intending to leave notes for a broadcast report on the talk page? If not, I'll remove the {{broadcast report}} template from the article page. --LivelyRatification (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@LivelyRatification: You are right, I just came over here. Removed. That template was a mistake to include. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Reviewer Comment

@LivelyRatification: I'm sure you need no reminders, I'd just like to emphasise that, were I reviewing this, I would immediately find fault with the use of NYT sources, and potentially listing too many sources where novel information was not gleaned. @TheSandDoctor: — take care to heed Wikinews' policy on no paywalled sources, and take care to list as sources only web sites where you directly drew information from, and which was unique to that web site specifically. Otherwise, it becomes a hassle for any reviewer and curious reader. --JJLiu112 (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up - just in regards to the NYT sources, so long as there was no information in that source that I couldn't verify with the article's other sources, I wasn't planning to address this until the review, but I was very much aware of it. The amount of sources is a potential issue, but not a prohibitive one here in my view, given there were only five non-paywalled sources, but I do appreciate you bringing that up as well as it is something to be noted. LivelyRatification (talk) 01:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@JJLiu112, LivelyRatification: Coming from enwiki, I wasn't aware of the paywall rule. My apologies. I have swapped out the sources and have trimmed the number cited. The comment said "at least" 2 sources, so I figured the more the better and didn't consider 7 excessive (from enwiki). I apologize for ruffling feathers, I assure you that that was not my intent. I'm trying to help out here and learning as I go. Thank you for linking the style guide, I will refer to that religiously. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Oh, no need to apologise! I've done worse, plenty worse, and for a second attempt this is pretty bang-on. --JJLiu112 (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: All good! Standards here can be a bit difficult or confusing to grasp at first when compared to enwiki, but it's fairly easy to get the hang of it after a while. I'd also recommend Wikinews:For Wikipedians if you'd like to take a gander there. LivelyRatification (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@LivelyRatification, JJLiu112: Thank you for the kind words and encouragement. I will give that page a read! I am an enwiki admin with a couple featured articles, but admittedly out of my depth here for the moment haha. Definitely open to any tips & tricks while I learn this new area. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:40, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@TheSandDoctor: I can see that! I'm a bit intimidated honestly, what if you're better than us? :p --JJLiu112 (talk) 01:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4647389 [Not ready]

Revision 4647389 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: Could not verify last paragraph in non-paywalled sources. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I couldn't find anything mentioning a sworn affidavit outside of the New York Times source. As the Times is paywalled, per WN:PAYWALL, it's not acceptable for use. If an alternate source can be found to verify the information here, then the verifiability issue should be fixed. 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 4647389 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:10, 23 October 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: Could not verify last paragraph in non-paywalled sources. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I couldn't find anything mentioning a sworn affidavit outside of the New York Times source. As the Times is paywalled, per WN:PAYWALL, it's not acceptable for use. If an alternate source can be found to verify the information here, then the verifiability issue should be fixed. 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.

Generally, reading past articles in addition to Wikinews:Style guide & Wikinews:Writing an article would help in capturing the form and essence of our 'house rules'. --JJLiu112 (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@LivelyRatification: I didn't know about the paywall rule, so apologize. I found a replacement with Forbes that was staff written and have reduced the number of sources. How does that look now? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Should be all good! Just submit the article for review, and I should be able to get to it. LivelyRatification (talk) 01:31, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Done --TheSandDoctor (talk) 01:32, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4647433 [Passed]

Revision 4647433 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Issues with sources that I previously brought up have been addressed, so apart from that I was able to verify everything else with little issue. I would recommend that the author take a look through the edit history/edit summaries of the changes I've made to try and see any changes they could make in future, but overall a fine article. Nice work! 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 4647433 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:00, 23 October 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Issues with sources that I previously brought up have been addressed, so apart from that I was able to verify everything else with little issue. I would recommend that the author take a look through the edit history/edit summaries of the changes I've made to try and see any changes they could make in future, but overall a fine article. Nice work! 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.

@LivelyRatification: Thank you for the review! I will use the edits made to learn for future articles and greatly appreciate your assistance and patience. The opening sentence reads a little funny to me. "Actor Alec Baldwin was on Thursday involved in an accident...". Wouldn't it be better as "Actor Alec Baldwin was involved on Thursday in an accident..."? --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:04, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@TheSandDoctor: Fair point. Minor thing, but feel free to edit that if you'd like, no issue with that change. LivelyRatification (talk) 02:07, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@LivelyRatification: Done by myself and @JJLiu112:. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)