Style: Not ready: Wasn't sure what criterion to put this under; anyway, see below.
Comments by reviewer:
My big concern here is that, as presented by the lede, the focal news event for this article is publication of an article in a competing news outlet. That makes our article appear from the start to be derivative of CNN's. Seems we need to present a focus that isn't squarely on CNN.
I'm uncertain how much of this is really a deep problem of content, versus how much is a moderately superficial problem of presentation. I mean to ask for suggestions from others, as I'm not seeing atm how best to refocus, and feel I may be out of my depth.
I do perceive, looking the article over, that locating the facts, to be verified, in the sources may be somewhat challenging. Hopefully it will turn out to be not really too bad, and the reviewer (me or whoever) will muddle through; but, just saying, it's generally good for a review situation like this if the author offers some guidance on where to find stuff. One technique used is to put <!--html comments--> in the article text saying where each fact came from; another is to put guidance notes on the talk page.
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.
Style: Not ready: Wasn't sure what criterion to put this under; anyway, see below.
Comments by reviewer:
My big concern here is that, as presented by the lede, the focal news event for this article is publication of an article in a competing news outlet. That makes our article appear from the start to be derivative of CNN's. Seems we need to present a focus that isn't squarely on CNN.
I'm uncertain how much of this is really a deep problem of content, versus how much is a moderately superficial problem of presentation. I mean to ask for suggestions from others, as I'm not seeing atm how best to refocus, and feel I may be out of my depth.
I do perceive, looking the article over, that locating the facts, to be verified, in the sources may be somewhat challenging. Hopefully it will turn out to be not really too bad, and the reviewer (me or whoever) will muddle through; but, just saying, it's generally good for a review situation like this if the author offers some guidance on where to find stuff. One technique used is to put <!--html comments--> in the article text saying where each fact came from; another is to put guidance notes on the talk page.
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.
See below sect, Examples of similar news articles from other secondary sources. I've listed multiple other secondary sources that have covered this subject as well. It's newsworthy, noteworthy, educational, and topical. Other secondary news sources including New York Daily News, the International Business Times, and the National Journal, obviously think this is newsworthy enough to cover. We should too. :)
If you have any specific recommendations regarding ways to alter the article stylistically in order to fix "a moderately superficial problem of presentation", please, suggest them! I'd be more than happy to look over specific advice and input about that. However, I did take care to painstakingly do my best to take into account advice from Pi zero (talk · contribs) from prior article reviews where issues were successfully addressed — and start right out with the most topical recent material, and proceed downwards chronologically with background material. This style was satisfactory by Pi zero (talk · contribs) in subsequent reviews.
I think you'll find that locating the facts, to be verified, is not challenging. Each section of the article is pretty clear chronologically and as to background. The bulk of the material is sourced to the primary sources pertaining to each section. For example, the speech by the President of the United States, is sourced to his speech, at The White House, which is helpfully linked to, I might add, in the video, directly next to the article text. I've also gone ahead and added a few secondary sources to help with ease of reference confirmation, diff.
Comments by reviewer:
I think that's everything covered, but it was hard. The "extra" sources were, somewhat unusually (normally extra sources is a PITA), quite useful to extract some of this material from.
I wavered on neutrality; didn't appear to be much coverage of Limbaugh's side and any supporters he might have. I passed because I couldn't find any evidence he had supporters (although he must have a handful) and even he apoligised for the remarks.
The other point I wavered on was the concern of being a 'derivative'. I will never, ever pass an article on the basis that "everyone else is doing it". Wikinews strives to not be everyone else, and that means our own standards. I did pass on the basis that I found her comments newsworthy by our own standards.
In terms of the stylistic problem, whilst I'd prefer us not to immediately credit a rival, we are fond of giving credit where it's due. CNN managed to secure the op-ed; effectively, they broke (it's their original report, so perhaps 'made' is a better word) the story. I'd want the same courtesy handed to a WN exclusive.
All in all, another complex review. Those seem to have become common this year. Still, it's a nice piece. Kept the headline, although I don't like it, becauase I can't think of anything more explanatory that isn't absurdly huge. She is explained quickly in the lede.
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.
Comments by reviewer:
I think that's everything covered, but it was hard. The "extra" sources were, somewhat unusually (normally extra sources is a PITA), quite useful to extract some of this material from.
I wavered on neutrality; didn't appear to be much coverage of Limbaugh's side and any supporters he might have. I passed because I couldn't find any evidence he had supporters (although he must have a handful) and even he apoligised for the remarks.
The other point I wavered on was the concern of being a 'derivative'. I will never, ever pass an article on the basis that "everyone else is doing it". Wikinews strives to not be everyone else, and that means our own standards. I did pass on the basis that I found her comments newsworthy by our own standards.
In terms of the stylistic problem, whilst I'd prefer us not to immediately credit a rival, we are fond of giving credit where it's due. CNN managed to secure the op-ed; effectively, they broke (it's their original report, so perhaps 'made' is a better word) the story. I'd want the same courtesy handed to a WN exclusive.
All in all, another complex review. Those seem to have become common this year. Still, it's a nice piece. Kept the headline, although I don't like it, becauase I can't think of anything more explanatory that isn't absurdly huge. She is explained quickly in the lede.
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.
