Open main menu

Talk:Wikinews interviews Scott Lucas, Eyal Zisser, Majid Rafizadeh about risks of US military intervention in Syria

Review of revision 1981898 [Passed]Edit

File:Wikinews - Majid Rafizadeh.jpgEdit

The above can't be added in violation of WN:ARCHIVE. I'd need to know more about the interviewee's reasons for the request; I get the impression you asked for an image for the article, then mistakenly left it out. In that case the ethical thing to do would be to insert it with a note remarking what happened. {{Correction}} seems over the top for that: I'd suggest a hatted note, such as the one used to note a significant conflict of interest on Scottish prosecutors keeping quiet about Lanarkshire surgical deaths. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:08, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I asked Computron on xyr talk page for clarification re what happened, so we can judge how best to handle this.
I agree, btw, about the copyright on the other image. --Pi zero (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I nom'd the other image for deletion on Commons. Seemed reasonable. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 11:46, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
The situation is that before I asked for the article to be reviewed that Rafizadeh sent me two images, both of which I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons. I suspected that these were not his images and he was insistent for me to add some images as he did not want to be mistaken for someone else with the same name. As these were suspicious I did not use them - also he kept requesting by email for the images and two emails were sent from him to me when I did not reply to him. I replied saying that if you upload something yourself to Commons, as I didn't want any copyright problems. I said I would then try to get it added to the article, knowing it would be against the 24-hour policy, although I haven't explained this part to him. --Computron (talk) 12:21, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Local upload, subject request; copyright clarification on images pending; in event of issues on copyright Wikinews is claiming "Fair Use/Fair Dealing" on image use (this article only) to satisfy interviewee's wish to be differentiated from individuals with same/similar name. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

How else might - or could have - this be/been improved?Edit

This — I think — is an ideal example of what we need to focus on.

I've done the 'most-conservative' copyedit I feel I can at this late a time post-publish (sorry, just too busy). Had it been close to publish? I would've gone further, and even edited quote punctuation.

For non-native speakers, and especially where you've contacted them via email, I'd read what they wrote out-loud to myself, and re-punctuate. Likewise for typos (instead of siccing them). Provided you, quickly, get back to the subject and say "I've edited your answers like <whatever> to make them clearer; are you happy with these tweaks? Is your meaning preserved — if not clarified?"

With people we're asking to answer questions in English, that's an approach that can be shared with reviewers (thus a check on overstepping certain bounds). You're not 'schooling' the interviewee because (as a journalist) you're expected to be an expert on the language; instead, you're an interviewer helping them answer the question as-clearly as-possible.

This (and, I'd hazard a guess that being associated with this article prompted the 'add my picture' plea to Computron) turns these sort of experts into people we can rely upon for thoughtful, considered, and quick responses to queries we might-well fire their way.

In stark contrast, the mainstream have their "pet experts"; and, in a huge number of cases, these folks get paid for quotes.

For this article, based upon the above comments, I'd like to try and do some of what I'd seek if this were sitting as an FAC candidate &mdash whilst it is still on the front page. For the reasons (regarding quote edits) mentioned above, this is something where it needs done now to get the interviewed experts to say they're happy with the edits. --Brian McNeil / talk 20:55, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Following on from the copyedit BRS okayed — mentioned above — I've done this. Can someone take a look and if they're not happy with it explain why here? --Brian McNeil / talk 21:03, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • One look, after that "bold" edit? Only one thing to do here; drop the == Sources == section and roll the {{interview}} template under related news. Even if the 'bold' edit is reverted, please put that change in. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:09, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
I do admit that I have had very little time this week having been committed to other stuff already, that I didn't proofread this myself as I have done with past interviews. I think that a list could be compiled of people who all Wikinews volunteers have contacted and if we are looking for quotes or full interviews, we can work collaboratively with the contacts that have been produced. --Computron (talk) 21:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The "Wikinewsie Rolodex" has long been on my wish-list. I thought this was an excellent article to bring up these points on. No criticism intended; other than of a constructive manner.
I've taken one "lightbulb moment" away from this article. That being? "The Sources section can be as-optional as we've, previously, treated Related news."
You've found a route 'off the mainstream narrative', so the lack of time to polish the story can easily be ignored. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:36, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
  • The copyedit is, frankly, pushing your luck to the edge with what we can do under archival; but as I've noted previously, something being borderline is not an automatic reason not to do it. I've sighted. As for expert's contact deets, I recall one time I made a proposal for something similar whereby we would reach out to a range of experts to ask to be handy to send in questions to from time to time as a way of quickly augmenting big stories with OR. Nought came of that at the time. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:26, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
That as well as a list of translators for original reporting would be very good, in my opinion. --Computron (talk) 13:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
  • <chuckles> at BRS' characterisation of the copyedit.
Deliberately took it as-far as I thought reasonable outwith the 48hrs window. I thought it'd be really useful to do that, and start a discussion. If I'd more time, this is something where I would've done a lot more in the way of punctuation changes to quotes — especially for those who don't have English as a first language — than asked them (before pushing publish) if their meaning was well-preserved (if-not significantly clarified). Had the interview been audio, you've automatically got that license to punctuate based on the spoken word. My opinion is we should take a similar license with non-native speakers of English. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
I've just gotten responses back from a guy with one or two small errors; I've got to say, I'd go for simply fixing them and don't for a minute think it's an issue. I'm quite relaxed about edits (typos, minor grammar/spelling) to responses even within the archive. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:23, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured ArticleEdit

With discussion open from September 22, this article was promoted to {{FA}} status on October 6, 2013. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:31, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

CategoriesEdit

{{edit protected}} Please move this article from Category:Syria to Category:Syrian Civil War. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Added to the latter. --Pi zero (talk) 01:04, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Return to "Wikinews interviews Scott Lucas, Eyal Zisser, Majid Rafizadeh about risks of US military intervention in Syria" page.