ATS
Redirect page
Redirect to:
{{under review}}
editPlease note the {{under review}} tag on the article, which asks the article not be directly edited by others. Besides the confusion (which can cost a lot in itself), an edit conflict that doesn't go well could destroy a huge amount of reviewer labor (though fortunately it didn't in this case). --Pi zero (talk) 22:21, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
- Gotcha, Pi zero. Maybe I should do this more often and learn the protocols ... xD 🖖ATS / Talk 22:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Published. Congrats on your first Wikinews publication; for most new contributors I might say something like 'congratulations, you're now a published journalist', but I gather that horse left the barn some time ago. Though it is true gnews picks up published Wikinews articles as news proper. And we do sometimes get syndicated, occasionally (afaik) in print. I suppose the usual links to review comments and article history are unnecessary too; but, congratulations. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 01:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
- Much obliged and, again, my thanks for your hard work. 🖖ATS / Talk 01:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, I'm pretty sure you saw (since you thanked me for an edit), but: please see my review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: okay, should be ready when you are. My thanks once again. 🖖ATS / Talk 01:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Whilst reviewing acagastya's Euro 16 article, I've glanced over your article as revised, and come to the unpleasant realization that your article probably doesn't possess a focal event that happened in the past day or two — which would mean it wouldn't satisfy our criteria for newsworthiness. The thing that's happening is in the future and its announcement is well in the past. (This aspect of our newsworthiness criteria comes, I'd say, from a combination of our take on neutrality and our intent not to poach on Wikipedia's territory even though they systematically try to poach on ours.) The symptom, which I may have alluded to, is that there's no "day" word in the lede — this principle is mentioned in the advice on "when" at page WN:Five Ws and H. :-S --Pi zero (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: ah, okay. I would say move it into my sandbox, but I guess WN doesn't have one. What to do 'til Saturday, then? (I'll get used to this shit eventually ... xDDD) 🖖ATS / Talk 02:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- It can be tagged as a prepared story (there's a template for that, around here somewhere); as a matter of form (though I imagine I'll probably be listening myself), we'll want to add a source testifying to the fact that the event actually happened as anticipated (there's a well-established precedent that the two source rule can be satisfied, in a pinch, by one or more sources anticipating the event and one source after the fact bearing witness that it actually happened, provided the witnessed event stays reasonably within the bounds of expectation). --Pi zero (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: ah, okay. I would say move it into my sandbox, but I guess WN doesn't have one. What to do 'til Saturday, then? (I'll get used to this shit eventually ... xDDD) 🖖ATS / Talk 02:46, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Whilst reviewing acagastya's Euro 16 article, I've glanced over your article as revised, and come to the unpleasant realization that your article probably doesn't possess a focal event that happened in the past day or two — which would mean it wouldn't satisfy our criteria for newsworthiness. The thing that's happening is in the future and its announcement is well in the past. (This aspect of our newsworthiness criteria comes, I'd say, from a combination of our take on neutrality and our intent not to poach on Wikipedia's territory even though they systematically try to poach on ours.) The symptom, which I may have alluded to, is that there's no "day" word in the lede — this principle is mentioned in the advice on "when" at page WN:Five Ws and H. :-S --Pi zero (talk) 02:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)