Talk:US Capitol lockdown lifted after shooting

Review of revision 3389627 [Not ready]

Revision 3389627 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: We don't use fotnotes. If you want to help reviewers tell where in the sources information comes from, feel free to leave an html comment, saying which of the listed sources some bit of information comes from, embedded in the article text<!-- like this -->. Leave a note on the collaboration page that the html comments are there so reviewers know to look for them. Please provide the publishers of the cited sources in the pub field, rather than repeating the date there. Our headlines do not use title case (everything capitalized), they use sentence case (only the first word and proper nouns capitalized). 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 3389627 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:14, 11 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: We don't use fotnotes. If you want to help reviewers tell where in the sources information comes from, feel free to leave an html comment, saying which of the listed sources some bit of information comes from, embedded in the article text<!-- like this -->. Leave a note on the collaboration page that the html comments are there so reviewers know to look for them. Please provide the publishers of the cited sources in the pub field, rather than repeating the date there. Our headlines do not use title case (everything capitalized), they use sentence case (only the first word and proper nouns capitalized). 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.

How is this not acceptable? nothing is plagiarized, i cited my sources and its relevant it happened 45 minuets ago?? how do i change the article headline without making a new page?? Jverwey (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

questions?

How is this not acceptable? nothing is plagiarized, i cited my sources and its relevant it happened 45 minuets ago?? how do i change the article headline without making a new page??Jverwey (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jverwey: You change the headline by renaming the article. At the top of your browser window when viewing the article, on the control bar at the top over on the right there should be a dropdown menu with just one item on it, which is to rename the article. --Pi zero (talk) 20:52, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

questions?

i would like to get this published sometime soon as its very relative ! hand i don't want someone to write an article then mine get scraped Jverwey (talk) 20:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Publishable ??

is this publishable now ? i think i have changed everything to your liking and standards.

Now it gets reviewed, and we'll see. --Pi zero (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

okay, well does it look like it will pass to you ?? Jverwey (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

@Jverwey: I'm only guessing, but, my guess is it would have passed. --Pi zero (talk) 22:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3389901 [Not ready]

Revision 3389901 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Drat. New developments in the story; this is now "old news". You'll need to update it. :-S 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 3389901 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Drat. New developments in the story; this is now "old news". You'll need to update it. :-S 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.

• To be clear: at least one source says the lockdown has been lifted, which requires changes to the lede and headline. --Pi zero (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

NOW?

how does it look now ? I've updated everythingJverwey (talk) 23:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Subject obviously to the rigorous review, it looks good to me.

(Please do keep in mind, I'm a volunteer. I contribute an unreasonable amount of my time to Wikinews because I care.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Publication

i w

Heading text

i would like to have it published sometime tonight, so i don't have to re write it again and again and keep making it relative. thank you.Jverwey (talk) 23:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Review is collaboration with the writer; that's the first pillar at WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing. The more pleasant reviewers find collaboration with you, the more they'll be motivated to review your articles. --Pi zero (talk) 00:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Im just figuring out all this stuff, sorry if i come off as rude or pushy, i just thought it was a good article ! hope to get it published soon! thanks for your help today. Jverwey (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm probably a bit grouchy myself (rough day irl). I do understand you're really trying to make this work. (I'm a little worried about copyright atm as I start looking at this text... but I mean to be thorough about this, and if the problem is small enough for me to just fix, I certainly will.) --Pi zero (talk) 01:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Awesome, I've seen that you changed a view things. hows it looking like it on your end ?? Jverwey (talk) 01:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3390124 [Not ready]

Revision 3390124 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Don't copy passages from source and then "scuff them up", by changing words here and there. It doesn't avoid accusations of plagiary. This is a really super-important point; the commercial news sites make their living on their words, and they're quite aggressive about protecting their copyright. Here's an example; the first line is what you wrote, the second is AP (punctuation removed): bomb squad members checked out the package a rolling suitcase but found nothing of suspicion or any other weapons the bomb squad immediately checked out the suspicious package a rolling luggage bag but found nothing of interest nor any additional weapons It should be clear that these are the same sentence. I found another sentence identical to AP except for one word ("gunman" changed to "man"). I also found two smaller passages in the lede too close to AP. I didn't move on to compare with the other sources. Just from my comparison with AP, and given this is a fairly short article, I don't feel I could rewrite that much text for distance-from-source without disqualifying myself from review. I'd rather not disqualify myself. There's a bit about distance-from-source in WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing (it's the fifth pillar). 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 3390124 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:07, 12 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Don't copy passages from source and then "scuff them up", by changing words here and there. It doesn't avoid accusations of plagiary. This is a really super-important point; the commercial news sites make their living on their words, and they're quite aggressive about protecting their copyright. Here's an example; the first line is what you wrote, the second is AP (punctuation removed): bomb squad members checked out the package a rolling suitcase but found nothing of suspicion or any other weapons the bomb squad immediately checked out the suspicious package a rolling luggage bag but found nothing of interest nor any additional weapons It should be clear that these are the same sentence. I found another sentence identical to AP except for one word ("gunman" changed to "man"). I also found two smaller passages in the lede too close to AP. I didn't move on to compare with the other sources. Just from my comparison with AP, and given this is a fairly short article, I don't feel I could rewrite that much text for distance-from-source without disqualifying myself from review. I'd rather not disqualify myself. There's a bit about distance-from-source in WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing (it's the fifth pillar). 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.

plagiarism rewrite

Hi Pi Zero, I've rewritten the article.

Review of revision 3391688 [Passed]

Revision 3391688 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: After one sentence was cut as a holdover from the previous version, this is right around minimal length. I could see a reviewer not-ready'ing it as below minimal length; but it feels reasonable to me, with each of the two shorter paragraphs providing multiple details. 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 3391688 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: After one sentence was cut as a holdover from the previous version, this is right around minimal length. I could see a reviewer not-ready'ing it as below minimal length; but it feels reasonable to me, with each of the two shorter paragraphs providing multiple details. 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.