Talk:UN releases first-ever human rights report on Kashmir

@Acagastya: Any inputs for this would be great! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: What do you want me to do? I can either write about it (I was following the Pakistan side of the story a few minutes ago), or should I tell you what are the requirements. If I write, I can not review it, per the policy; and if you want to add something more, I would love to help you. Speaking in terms of IST, I can be available till 8:30 PM.
•–• 10:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: If you can help expand the article as much as possible so it is long enough and suitable for review (if you want to of course :D ). It is ok if you can't review it then, I am sure there would be other reviewers, this is actually my first article on Wikinews so I didn't know that policy. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 10:54, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Input for the Pakistan side or how Pakistan has reacted would be great! DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes, DiplomatTesterMan. I am finishing some work for FWC18 templates -- and then I will start writing about it off-wiki. So in the meanwhile, if you want to add something, feel free to. I will announce on the talk page before making substantial edits. BTW, pinging on talk was a great thing do to. Give me ten minutes to get started.
•–• 11:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, that would be great. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Oh shoot -- I hope I did not cause edit conflicts, DiplomatTesterMan. Was making few tweaks before beginning the writings off-wiki.
•–• 11:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Actually, as of now, I am not involved in the content writing, and I can still review the article. It meets the minimal length requirement (that is three medium-sized paragraphs -- see Length) Also, we can make substantial edits within 24 hours after the article is published. So, if you want to submit it for review, it would work!
•–• 11:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes there was one @Acagastya:, but then I have got use to them because of editing Wikipedia so I save off-wiki (as you also wrote just now) in case i see an edit conflict before refreshing and just copy paste it back.... Making small edits when I know others are probably editing rather than large ones etc... no problem... and then the conflict edit shows so yeh...

Ok it meets the minimum length that is great... will submit it for review then... thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 11:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan: I hope you did not go afk -- it seems that Pakistan has also rejected the report. Any chance you could quickly add a couple of lines for it? I am asking because if we want to add that information later, let's say after the publication, we would not be able to rename the article after the publication. What do you suggest?
•–• 11:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

---

Notes (so that I don't forget while writing review comments)

• spell out natural numbers below 20
• the first paragraph, which is called the lede should answer the wh questions, which it does; however the other information should be left for the rest of the body. (Ask me, if you want me to clarify this point)
  • I don't mind restructuring the lede for newbies, but this is a point one should learn -- hopefully, a comparision between the edits would show how to do it.
• Sources should be listed newest -> oldest
• A newbie might not know all the categories that exist on the project, but for geographical ones, (example, Srinagar) go to the country category (India, in this case), then state/province (Jammu and Kashmir, in this case)... Don't leave the categories empty.

•–• 12:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I had already submitted it for review so I guess i have to wait now. The box says not to make any changes until review done... like all these changes you have mentioned i will keep in mind for the future too... i guess i am rusing this article... thanks DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@DiplomatTesterMan:You should not be editing the article while it is marked {{under review}}, yes, but if there is something you want to let the reviewer know, even if you want to add something, mention that on talk page. Reviewers are supposed to read everything on talk before passing/failing the review.
•–• 12:31, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok understood. Thanks. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 12:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4413351 [Not ready]

Revision 4413351 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See the comments below NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: We need two mutually independent sources for verification. (See source) In this case, ET says India rejected the report, and GK says someone in Kashmir welcomed it. So, just after not-readying this article, I will start editing it so that we can get this one done as soon as possible. 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 4413351 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:16, 14 June 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See the comments below NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: We need two mutually independent sources for verification. (See source) In this case, ET says India rejected the report, and GK says someone in Kashmir welcomed it. So, just after not-readying this article, I will start editing it so that we can get this one done as soon as possible. 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.

@DiplomatTesterMan: unfortunately, it had verification issues. I hope you don't mind if I fix this article. I will not be able to review it once I am involved in writing, but time id the most important thing right now.
•–• 13:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: That would be great if you could help fix this article. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I am. But torn between the World Cup article and this one -- this article is turning out to be longer than usual, with Pakistan's side of the story.
•–• 18:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Haha ok, no problem, thanks for all the inputs today. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Missing the other part of the story

@DiplomatTesterMan: Pakistan had significant involvement which is missing from the article -- not mentioning it against the journalistic ethics. I hope you don't mind if I change the flow of the article.
•–• 18:24, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Feel free to make whatever changes you want as per Wikinews guidelines. Of course I won't mind. Yes Pakistan should be mentioned in more detail... I have only included one line. DiplomatTesterMan (talk) 18:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4414266 [Not ready]

Revision 4414266 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: Please attend to the issues highlighted by hidden comments. 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 4414266 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: Please attend to the issues highlighted by hidden comments. 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.

@Acagastya: they are not major issues but ones which need addressing for the readers sake. Otherwise it is well-written (allowing for the "definite/indefinite article" i.e. use "a"/"an" and "the" more often). I’ll be around for at least a couple of hours. Green Giant (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4414349 [Passed]

Revision 4414349 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: All identifed issues have been fixed. 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 4414349 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 10:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: All identifed issues have been fixed. 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.

@Green Giant: would you mind swapping lead articles 1 and 5? @Pi zero: need to change the protection for the page.
•–• 10:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

And I realised a mistake. "its first ever". Pi, you need to move this page.
•–• 10:07, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Leads swapped. Not sure about changing title but I’ll leave it up to you and Pi zero. —Green Giant (talk) 10:13, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I had done it, but the second move left out the "its" word. It is important to mention that.
•–• 10:18, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

On consideration, although an "its" in the headline would have been fine, its elision seems to me to be also within bounds for headlinese. The first sentence of the lede says "its", and it was important there to say "its" rather than "the"; but "the" would be routinely ommitted from headlinese, and while "its" could be included in the headline, I'm thinking the headline is okay as-is. Keeping in mind, also, that within reason we prefer not to rename post-publish. --Pi zero (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2018 (UTC)