Talk:Thirteen-year-old boy in Los Angeles, California thanks city personnel for rescue from sewage pipe

Headlline

I suggest dropping "is" and "a", as a matter of headlinese; and specifying California. Thus, "Thirteen-year-old boy in Log Angeles, California rescued from sewage pipe". --Pi zero (talk) 11:24, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Great idea. :-) I am glad the typo wasn't carried over.

It would be nice to avoid passive voice, if not in the headline then at least in the first paragraph. I.e. "On Monday, a 13-year-old boy Jesse Hernandez was rescued from a city sewage pipe" -> "On Monday, city officials rescued a 13-year-old boy Jesse Hernandez from a city sewage pipe".

Such modification could result in a "City officials rescue thirteen-year-old boy in Log Angeles, California from sewage pipe" but that could be too long. --Gryllida (talk) 21:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4398515 [Not ready]

Revision 4398515 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: Problematic; see below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Do not direct-quote sources; the prohibition against copying sources cannot be set aside by putting double-quotes around the passage and acknowledging where it came from. People who are genuinely part of the story can be direct-quoted; but the journalists who write the source articles are almost never part of the story. There's a quote like that here, from Huffington Post. Please provide two mutually independent sources for the focal event; there's only one atm. This should always been done when refocusing an article — find two independent sources, add them, and then add then write the new text. Had there been no other significant problem with the article, I might have been able to justify accepting despite the single updating source, with careful justifications and a stern warning to not make a habit of it, but it's really much better form to provide two independent sources for the focus. (I can think of a classic exception to this rule, and there were extenuating circumstances that don't really apply here.) 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 4398515 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:30, 8 April 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: Problematic; see below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Do not direct-quote sources; the prohibition against copying sources cannot be set aside by putting double-quotes around the passage and acknowledging where it came from. People who are genuinely part of the story can be direct-quoted; but the journalists who write the source articles are almost never part of the story. There's a quote like that here, from Huffington Post. Please provide two mutually independent sources for the focal event; there's only one atm. This should always been done when refocusing an article — find two independent sources, add them, and then add then write the new text. Had there been no other significant problem with the article, I might have been able to justify accepting despite the single updating source, with careful justifications and a stern warning to not make a habit of it, but it's really much better form to provide two independent sources for the focus. (I can think of a classic exception to this rule, and there were extenuating circumstances that don't really apply here.) 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.

I made changes to the article by replacing quotes. --George Ho (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4398633 [Passed]

Revision 4398633 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:45, 8 April 2018 (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 4398633 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:45, 8 April 2018 (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.