I can think of things that could have made the article stronger. I can see the fascinating issue underlying this, and the article would be stronger if it brought that issue out more clearly; indeed, my ability to see it probably weakened my effectiveness when reviewing, by distracting me from asking for greater clarity on that point before publication.

But you might want to consider your own approach to this. Can you see a fundamental difference between my criticisms (self- and otherwise), and yours? I do review after review, turning things down and trying to find ways to provide helpful feedback while doing so; perhaps I forget what it's like not to think in terms of providing useful feedback. I encourage you, though, to think in those terms. I look for and try to describe what could be done better; what are you looking for, and what do you think you come across as looking for?

Pi zero (talk)01:16, 8 November 2012

Well, I suppose I could have sugar-coated the criticism of "not newsworthy" more, but I thought Wikinews liked getting to the point as quickly as possible! Having said that, being told in terms that the problem is with me because I can't see the glaringly obvious interest of the fascinating issue in this doesn't fill my heart with joy and gladness either. This isn't about me, though, however odd my thinking might be in your eyes (and those of Mrs Bencherlite, I'm sure). It's not about you, either, although I know you work very hard here, and I merely pass through from time to time to check my watchlist / recent changes (where I see proof of your many labours) and sometimes end up making minor corrections to things on the main page - but your interest in, and time for, Wikinews is rather different to mine.

Bencherlite (talk)01:55, 8 November 2012

Sugar coating isn't what I'm talking about.

Pi zero (talk)02:01, 8 November 2012

That's too laconic. I'll try to do a little better.

You're tending, in this thread, to oversimplify things. The alternative to sugar-coating isn't destructive criticism, which is, unfortunately, how you came across (and I responded too readily to the negative tone). And it isn't necessary to choose one aspect of the situation that is the only one that could be improved. Wikinewsies (and people in general) should never stop striving to improve. I've been noting potentials for improvement on several fronts here; the article, my review technique, my discussion technique, and your... er. I won't say "discussion technique" because that's too narrow. Your approach to the whole situation. Not just how you express yourself, but the the questions you ask yourself that lead you to choose what to say, before how to say it ever comes up. (Did I mention I'm not advocating sugar-coating? :-)

Pi zero (talk)02:31, 8 November 2012