Talk:Strong rain and wind kill one in Chile

Well, I heard the died man part in the radio, Somos Pichilemu, in Sunday 13. While the Santa Cruz information was reported by my sister, who was there, on Monday 14. --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 22:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

What's the proof that the man who died died because of the storm? He crashed, but it says nothing about the crash being caused by the storm. Either way (talk) 00:18, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Is there an article/source that can provide more information on this man's death rather than just the radio thing you heard? It would, presumably, have been published in the newspaper by now. Since the headline of this is about someone dying, I think we should have more than just one sentence about him dying. So it would be good to have more information about it. Either way (talk) 23:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 1044296 [Failed]

Revision 1044296 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Would like to see at least one additional secondary source. Also, it would be best to have a bit more extensive notes for the journalism, as well as more detailed information like date/time of original reporting, etc. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Needs some copyediting, gotta watch the tense changes, the article should pick one, present/past, and go with it. Comments by reviewer: Also, might be nice to expand the article text a bit more, again perhaps with one or two more secondary sources. Otherwise, nice work! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 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 1044296 of this article has been reviewed by Cirt (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Would like to see at least one additional secondary source. Also, it would be best to have a bit more extensive notes for the journalism, as well as more detailed information like date/time of original reporting, etc. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Needs some copyediting, gotta watch the tense changes, the article should pick one, present/past, and go with it. Comments by reviewer: Also, might be nice to expand the article text a bit more, again perhaps with one or two more secondary sources. Otherwise, nice work! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC) 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.

Please

Could someone address the issues pointed by cirt? I cant right now because im editing from my phone and i will be very thankful if someone does. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 12:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC) (with Opera Mini)

Review of revision 1045767 [Passed]

Revision 1045767 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm tempted to fail this on verifiability, but given the extremely low standards en.wikinews currently has for "proof" of original reporting, I don't think this violates our rules. Sadly:P. Other than that, wow, those were some big storms 0_0. 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 1045767 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm tempted to fail this on verifiability, but given the extremely low standards en.wikinews currently has for "proof" of original reporting, I don't think this violates our rules. Sadly:P. Other than that, wow, those were some big storms 0_0. 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.

Why was this published?

3/4 of the sources are in spanish...this is the english wikinews page...NOT HAPPY JAN! (australian colloquialism) especially considering that there is no evidence to varify that a man died or if his death was a result of the storm...it be like me writing the story "Pigeon with 5 toes Walks Past Tree"... H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk 07:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There is too low of a threshold for original reporting it appears. I would have much preferred to have a source to confirm this, especially since the headline proclaims this to be the focus of our article, essentially, but we only have one sentence on it. And that one sentence is provided by a person hearing it on the radio with no time of when he heard it on the radio or anything like that. Too low of a bar here. Either way (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

That the sources are in Spanish doesn't means the article can't be proven. There are lots of other articles with only Russian, Spanish or French sources. So what's the problem? --Diego Grez ^{return fire} 14:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The language barrier is not the main concern here. We actually should encourage foreign language sources, as they can provide a refreshingly different viewpoint from anglophone MSM. The difficulty here, I think, is that there's no obvious way to connect the death of the man to the storm, and the sources don't appear to back this up. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Right. You would think that a death like this, being blamed on the storm, would be more covered in the media. However, it does not appear to be. Since the headline of this article is all about someone dying, it's kind of shaky to have an article around this radio report with a minimal explanation for why he died as a result of this storm. Either way (talk) 01:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

"We actually should encourage foreign language sources, as they can provide a refreshingly different viewpoint from anglophone MSM" <----------- this makes no sense, How is a person meant to continue their reading by reviewing the sources if they are in spanish and the person can only speak english? And just because there are many examples where the wrong language is used in the wrong place doesn't mean its right...H.R.H Sovereign King Bradley The Great, Autocrat of All Australia talk 08:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Clearly the solution is to learn spanish. As long as there is a reviewer able to read the sources, I don't see the problem. The primary goal of Wikinews is to create articles, not provide a list of links to other news sources. Bawolff ☺☻ 08:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bawolff here. lot of people here know foreign languages, and Spanish in particular is popular. I'd say between all Wikinews we will probably find someone for any of the world's major languages. If not, then there's always Google Translator to help; while it's not pretty, it usually does work reliably. If we were constrained to only English-language sources, we'd miss out on a lot of important events and information for coverage. Tempodivalse [talk] 12:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)