Talk:Wikinews Shorts: September 4, 2010/Abbas, Netanyahu to meet regularly
Sources
edit- Andrew Quinn and Jeffrey Heller, Reuters. "Israel, Palestinians agree to more talks" — National Post, September 1, 2010
- Ron Kampeas. "Netanyahu, Abbas each give a little on first day of talks" — September 2, 2010
Review of revision 1087958 [Failed]
edit  |
Revision 1087958 of this article has been reviewed by Dendodge (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Even briefs should have at least two sources to ensure neutrality. Please find another one, even if it serves no purpose other than to confirm what is already present in the article. 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 1087958 of this article has been reviewed by Dendodge (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Even briefs should have at least two sources to ensure neutrality. Please find another one, even if it serves no purpose other than to confirm what is already present in the article. 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 1088734 [Passed]
edit  |
Revision 1088734 of this article has been reviewed by Dendodge (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: It could probably stand as an article in its own right, as there is more than enough information available, but it seems fine how it is. 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 1088734 of this article has been reviewed by Dendodge (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: It could probably stand as an article in its own right, as there is more than enough information available, but it seems fine how it is. 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. |
De facto style guide violations
editThis should never have appeared as a standalone item on the main page. (I do think I see the chain of actions that led to it happening, and there's clearly no particular person to blame; even I sinned by omission, in not paying enough heed earlier to links in the chain that were in plain sight.) Underlength alone would disqualify it from appearing on its own on the main page — but, given that it did get put on the main page with its length, the fact that it appeared on the main page with no dateline and no sources section is just unprofessional. It makes us look cartoonish.
On sober reflection, I suppose I'll sight the fixes myself if no-one else has done so by the time I finish posting this note; after all, none of it is changing the content of the article, so indeed it might be done to an article at the time it was archived (except that with flaggedrevs, unless something went terribly wrong (as has in fact happened), no article would ever make it that far with such deep SG violations in it). --Pi zero (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Renaming self-revert
editThis is an explanation of the reasoning behind my reversion of my renaming of the page. (Further discussion on the overall situation described above is in this thread on the proposals water cooler.)
I was not aware, when I renamed it, that the page had originally had a similar, though not identical, name to what I renamed it to, the difference being that there used to be a prefix "Shorts: " on it. Had I known that, I would not have done the renaming because it would have seemed to me too close to being a revert (and therefore I'd be in violation of the three-revert rule). Since I wasn't aware of it at the time, and they're a bit different, I might be inclined to give myself the benefit of the doubt on that, except that, pursuant to remarks on the water cooler thread, I've been sensitized to the fact that the title of the article really should indicate that it's a short — and if I were to rename it that way, since (after several hours of study) I now am aware of the earlier name of the page, it really would seem to me so revert-like that I would find it entirely unacceptable. The upshot is that the only way I can rename the article so as to mention that it's a short, without violating the 3RR in my own eyes, is to revert my own renaming of it.
I still think that associating the article with September 2 is deceptive, and therefore bad for Wikinews; but I've concluded that leaving my renaming in place would be (for an entirely different reason) even worse, and those are the only two options open to me. --Pi zero (talk) 10:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
Protect
edit{{makeprotected}} A DPL query shows this is the only old unarchived article left. Like the others, this was edited by a few sysops over the years, but obviously none checked the protection level or noticed the absence of {{archive}}. Heavy Water (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Done This item seems to have a troubled history. Perhaps it had something to do with that and the "no publish" tag. --SVTCobra 10:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)
