Talk:SARS-CoV-2 surpasses one million infections worldwide

Notes

• I'm fairly sure Javascript needs to be enabled for the CBS source
• Sourcing notes (not to be construed as suggesting that the sources shouldn't be read in full, but just for help locating where facts are specifically available for verification; most facts are in more than one of the sources, only one listed here)
  • 1 million/52 thousand: CBS, second paragraph
  • Malawi: Al Jazeera, post titled "Malawi reports its first three cases"
  • Zambia: Al Jazeera, post titled "Zambia records first death"
  • North Korea: CBS, post titled "North Korea insists it's coronavirus-free"
  • "one of the few" - extrapolate from "Nearly every other country has reported coronavirus cases" (same post in CBS)
  • US 224 thousand/5900: CBS, second paragraph
  • 1 thousand on Wednesday: CBS, post titled "More than 1,000 people in the U.S. died of coronavirus in a single day"
  • Moscow: Al Jazeera, post titled "Moscow extends partial lockdown until May 1"
  • Russia: Al Jazeera, post titled "Putin extends non-working days until April 30"
  • Portugal: Al Jazeera, post titled "Portugal extends state of emergency"
  • Saudi Arabia: Al Jazeera, post titled "Saudi Arabia imposes 24-hour curfew in Mecca, Medina"
  • Thailand: Al Jazeera, post titled "Thailand to announce nationwide curfew starting Friday"
  • Ohio: CBS, post titled "Ohio extends stay-at-home order"
• The paragraph regarding stricter restrictions is not an exhaustive list of changes

--DannyS712 (talk) 02:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you possibly attribute the fact in the first paragraph? The reports of cases come from WHO or not? If yes then who does WHO get them from? (Fact check: do the numbers from WHO coincide with the reports from these countries on their mass media?) Gryllida (talk) 03:27, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

See the sources breakdown above; I tweaked it to say "reportedly" --DannyS712 (talk) 03:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I meant for the total of one million, which is the subject of the headline. There is a source (WHO) that says Globally there is 896 450 confirmed cases and 45526 deaths. I'm not sure if the latter is included in the former; another question is how many of these confirmed cases are currently active. This however seems lower than the "At least 52 thousand deaths". Gryllida (talk) 03:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that is outdated - as of 0900 UTC 4/2/20 vs reports in the sources cited coming in much later --DannyS712 (talk) 03:39, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, could you possibly add the attribution to the first paragraph? I would add it but I completely messed up my understanding. Is it "According to reports by CBS and Al Jazeera"? Thank you. Gryllida (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Attribution for focal event

@Pi zero: re "not sure this will work work out (it looks odd for the focal event to be attributed as "reportedly"), but, taking a look-see" - I don't think the reportedly bit is needed, only added because of Gryllida's comment above, would agree with it being removed --DannyS712 (talk) 22:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Title

It should not be "COVID-19" but rather "Coronavirus" (or "SARS-Cov-2" if you want to be specific) - @Pi zero: people get infected with the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2 / Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) which is what causes the disease (COVID-19) - one does not get infected by a disease --DannyS712 (talk) 22:57, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I can't think of a reason not to act on it. --Pi zero (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

(I'm not completely convinced the disease name is strictly "wrong" here. But, as a I said.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

...I suggested "Coronavirus" because "SARS-Cov-2" is never mentioned in the text (also why I used the title in the first place) --DannyS712 (talk) 23:07, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

I'll keep that in mind. However, it's what is meant, while the other is a bit sloppy. In a few years we could be grappling with a different coronavirus. --Pi zero (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4556794 [Passed]

Revision 4556794 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I did wonder if COVID-19 would be a more recognizable specific term for the headline; some fiddling would be wanted since the term "cases", which should apply unproblematically to the disease, also peskily raises similarity concerns to one of the source headlines; but, this should do. 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 4556794 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I did wonder if COVID-19 would be a more recognizable specific term for the headline; some fiddling would be wanted since the term "cases", which should apply unproblematically to the disease, also peskily raises similarity concerns to one of the source headlines; but, this should do. 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.

"That"

@Pi zero: can you explain https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=SARS-CoV-2_surpasses_one_million_infections_worldwide&type=revision&diff=4556807&oldid=4556804 - "rule 13 ("omit needless words")"? Where is this rule written? Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Heh. It is (in my observation) the most famous admonition of William Strunk's 1919 The Elements of style. Cf. s:The Elements of Style/Principles#13. Omit needless words. --Pi zero (talk) 01:14, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I've never heard it before, and I don't think the words are "needless". Wikinews:Style guide#Style issues not covered by this guide says to refer to "one" of the listed guides, and the one I referred if both ways were valid not to change it; even if not having the words is still valid, they should be kept. --DannyS712 (talk) 01:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Tightening up prose a bit is pretty standard in news writing, I believe. As a matter of interest, what function do you see the words performing? To me, truthfully, it seems to mean the same thing except with more words. --Pi zero (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

(I'm leaving it for some other reviewer to weigh in on. Anyone? @Acagastya, Gryllida, Green Giant:?) --Pi zero (talk) 02:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it makes it slightly clearer and flows better --DannyS712 (talk) 02:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Pi zero - having those two words there does not add anything in meaning. I find the word "that" is one of the most overused words in writing. Certainly it was hammered into me as a student and in employment that it should be used as little as needed. That said, I can see a few more places where words could be cut without losing meaning. Additionally I think the titles of specific people and bodies should be capitalised wherever possible e.g. Mike DeWine is the Governor of Ohio, one of fifty US state governors. --Green Giant (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

A side point (not about "that"): While the Wikinews:style guide prefers a light touch/hands-off approach to a great deal, it goes to some trouble to specify names of people's positions should not be capitalized when not directly part of the name, i.e., "Governor Mike DeWine of Ohio" but "Mike DeWine, governor of Ohio". The example in the style guide even specifically uses "governor". --Pi zero (talk) 13:06, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
I offer some larger-picture observations relating to this small by-play on stylistic details.

Detailed proof-reading is part of Wikinews article production, of course. It's certainly valuable/important for writers and reviewers to engage the low-level-detail aspect of things. The low-level aspect is the province of what Wikipedian culture calls wikignomes, and in general an effective Wikinews reviewer has to have a bit of wikignome in them so this aspect is not neglected. However, Wikinews is ultimately driven from principles of a higher level, with the low-level details in a supporting role. Our policies and guidelines minimize details in favor of generalities from which we infer specifics, the apparent origin of the historical trend of Wikinewsies teasing/criticizing Wikipedia for being overly bureaucratic. We try to keep the low-level details as low-profile as can be arranged, and when they threaten to take center stage, that's a bit worrisome.

Zooming in a bit, yes we try to accommodate stylistic differences between different varieties of English; but part of the point of that is to allow us to bypass squabbles over those issues so we can attend more to more central concerns like attribution, objectivity, accuracy. The principle of saying things in fewer words rather than more —which Strunk famously expressed in very few words as "omit needless words"— is more of a news-writing-style thing than a variety-of-English sort of thing; yes, some of Strunk's advice on writing is more idiosyncratic, but that one is pretty standard, and we tend to apply it rather generally. That is, tightening up phrasing is something we tend to do without putting a lot of effort into worrying about whether extra words are more prevalent in one or another language-variety. Granted, some particular constructs are more awkward in some dialects than others, so this isn't always 100% clear-cut; but our hope is to do something everyone can live with and move on, without having to put a lot of higher-level thought into it. --Pi zero (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

2 mil

{{editprotected}} According to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019–20_coronavirus_pandemic the world has 1.872 million cases. More then a million people live in San Jose, CA but that many people is more then the population of Phoenix, AZ plus a few suburbs. 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:26 (talk) 16:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This does not appear to entail any change to this Wikinews article. --Pi zero (talk) 17:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)