Talk:Wikinews Shorts: April 2, 2012

Reporter notes

References to where content is found in sources is inline in text as comments.--LauraHale (talk) 02:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

For the Blackhawks, I watched both games on television with my parents in the Chicago area. (The first game I watched on DirectTV on WGN. The second game I watched over free to air as DirectTV and WGN are having a bit of a spat at the moment. Thus, DirectTV is not carrying WGN. WGN ran comments urging people to call directtv to complain. DirectTV has a similar thing on the WGN channel.) I saw both games that way, and the Blackhawks won the first won and lost the second one. Both games were shoot outs. The commentators in the first game repeatedly mentioned the Blackhawks needed to clench to win. My parents have watched 90% of the games on television this season and attended one match. Beyond the commentary on television, they also talked about how the Blackhawks needed to win and how their qualifying position would help them with advancing as they won't have to player more difficult teams in the early round. I did not watch either IceHogs game. --LauraHale (talk) 19:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1455594 [Not ready]

Revision 1455594 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: We've gotten the sequence of events re the Icehogs confuzzed. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1455594 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: We've gotten the sequence of events re the Icehogs confuzzed. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Meep. :( Will fix after getting some sleep. (Almost midnight where I am at the present.) Sources to use to fix for tomorrow include this and this.--LauraHale (talk) 04:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Should now be fixed. Added the two sources listed. --LauraHale (talk) 14:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1456238 [Not ready]

Revision 1456238 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Three things bothered me here. The IceHogs item doesn't have a lede. It's two paragraphs, each about a different event. Given it's a short and we've already been 'round on this once, if this were all, I'd let it pass — with a comment, for the future. The second of the two IceHogs events is kind of a standalone event with only one source. I might let that alone pass too, given the nature of the source and the fact that the event is at least referred to as upcoming by another of the sources. With, again, a comment for the future. I might have let pass both of these first two together. The Blackhawks item, though, is really two independent events, each of which has one source that, afaics, does not even refer to the other event. This seems to defy the spirit of the two-source rule. 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 1456238 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Three things bothered me here. The IceHogs item doesn't have a lede. It's two paragraphs, each about a different event. Given it's a short and we've already been 'round on this once, if this were all, I'd let it pass — with a comment, for the future. The second of the two IceHogs events is kind of a standalone event with only one source. I might let that alone pass too, given the nature of the source and the fact that the event is at least referred to as upcoming by another of the sources. With, again, a comment for the future. I might have let pass both of these first two together. The Blackhawks item, though, is really two independent events, each of which has one source that, afaics, does not even refer to the other event. This seems to defy the spirit of the two-source rule. 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.

Review of revision 1456376 [Passed]

Revision 1456376 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: On consultation with the reporter, independent verification in the form of (admittedly minor) OR exists for the second item, and has now been provided in the form of notes by the reporter on the talk page. Consistent with the previous review, I'm not holding up publication over concerns with the first item. 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 1456376 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: On consultation with the reporter, independent verification in the form of (admittedly minor) OR exists for the second item, and has now been provided in the form of notes by the reporter on the talk page. Consistent with the previous review, I'm not holding up publication over concerns with the first item. 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.