Brylie

Welcome to Wikinews

Getting started as a contributor How to write an article Pick something current? Use two independent sources? Read your sources before writing the story in your own words?. Do choose a unique title? before you start. Follow Wikinews' structure? for articles, answering as many of who what when where why and how? as you can; summarised in a short, two- or three-sentence opening paragraph. Once complete, your article must be three or more paragraphs. If you need help, you can add {{helpme}} to your talkpage, along with a question, or alternatively, just ask? Use this tab to enter your title and get a basic article template. [RECOMMENDED. Starts your article through the semi-automated {{develop}}—>{{review}}—>{{publish}} collaboration process.]

Welcome! Thank you for joining Wikinews; we'd love for you to stick around and get more involved. To help you get started we have an essay that will guide you through the process of writing your first full article. There are many other things you can do on the project, but its lifeblood is new, current, stories written neutrally. As you get more involved, you will need to look into key project policies and other discussions you can participate in; so, keep this message on this page and refer to the other links in it when you want to learn more, or have any problems. Wikipedia's puzzle-globe logo, © Wikimedia Foundation   Used to contributing to Wikipedia? See here.

All Wikimedia projects have rules. Here are ours. Listed here are the official policies of the project, you may be referred to some of them if your early attempts at writing articles don't follow them. Don't let this discourage you, we all had to start somewhere. The rules and guides laid out here are intended to keep content to high standards and meet certain rules the Wikimedia Foundation applies to all projects. It may seem like a lot to read, but you do not have to go through it all in one sitting, or know them all before you can start contributing. Remember, you should enjoy contributing to the project. If you're really stuck come chat with the regulars. There's usually someone in chat who will be happy to help, but they may not respond instantly.

The core policies Neutral point of view Cite sources Writing an article Content guide Style guide Reviewing articles

Places to go, people to meet Wiki projects work because a sense of community forms around the project. Although writing news is far more individualistic than contributing to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, people often need minor help with things like spelling and copyediting. If a story isn't too old you might be able to expand it, or if it is disputed you may be able to find some more sources and rescue it before it is listed for deletion. There are always discussions going on about how the site could be improved, and your input is of value. Check the links here to see where you can give input to the running of the Wikinews project.

Find help and get involved The Water Cooler The Latest News The Newsroom Articles for deletion Audio Wikinews Recent Changes

Write your first article for Wikinews! Use the following box to help you create your first article. Simply type in a title to your story and press "Create page". Then start typing text to your story into the new box that will come up. When you're done, press "save page". That's all there is to it! It is recommended you read the article guide before starting. Also make sure to check the list of recently created articles to see if your story hasn't already been reported upon.

Militia group captures Goma, Congo; advances on villages

Hi. Glad you're interested in contributing to Wikinews. I felt the article needed to explain itself more clearly before in-depth review; see the review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I've left some remarks on the talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• I've tried to help a bit with this; you should see it's a little more-structured as a news report. But it was only towards the end of what I've done that I spotted the cited AP source was October 20, not November 20.

That probably explains a good-deal of the conflicting information/confusion present; unfortuantely, it also renders some of how the article is reporting/flowing as quite inaccurate.

I'm pretty sure there will be sources from today, or yesterday, that can give additional information. You'll see I've sorted the sources newst->oldest; the general idea behind that is "what's newest is 'most newsworthy'", so generally facts in the story tie up with the sources (as-opposed to using encyclopedit reference/footnotes style - people go "click, click" and have left Wikinews before reading the article).

I'll see about fixing up the use of references by converting them to sources. To help whoever is reviewing, we often use HTML comments for stuff like that. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:20, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. Unfortunately, my earnest attempt to review the article, in its latest form (I've renamed this section to fix the link), has fallen through. I've written extensive review comments, and see also the detailed history of edits during review. --Pi zero (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I've left another set of review comments.

I notice you edited the article a little before I submitted my review. Er. The {{under review}} tag that I put on when I started reviewing asks to please not edit the article, but instead say stuff on the article talk page. I haven't looked at what you did; my review was based on the version as of my previous edit. --Pi zero (talk) 20:32, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I made minor modifications, removing extra punctuation and changed the description of Mugunga to indicate that it was established prior to the current conflict.--Brylie Oxley (talk) 20:44, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I figured I should mention it; it's generally just a matter of either overlooking the template, or not noticing what it says. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Terror suspects arrested in connection with bombing public bus in Israel

Thank you for your contributions towards getting this published. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:32, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Oil pipeline spills diesel in Utah nature preserve‎

I reviewed Oil pipeline spills diesel in Utah nature preserve‎. The lead suggests the oil spill is the focal event, but the sources say that happened last week (which the article does not make clear), and the court order happened recently. The article needs a rename and the focal point, the court order, changed. As the sources are two days old, it is getting harder to show newsworthiness so this need to be fixed really soon for it to potentially be published. --LauraHale (talk) 21:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Hi! The headline says "Chevron ordered to clean up oil spill in Utah nature preserve": would you happen to have a source for this statement? I can see sources about cleaning up near Willard Bay State Park but I can't even find a website or a map of an Utah nature preserve. Thanks. Gryllida^✎✍ 03:54, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, Wikinews requires that there is recent detail about the news within last two-three days. The second source says the order was made on Friday at 8:01am local time. At Monday, 25 March 2013 at 14:01 (UTC), three days passed. However you created your article at 17:17 March 25 UTC. I regret to admit that I had to not-ready the article after your latest review request. Gryllida^✎✍ 04:16, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

[[Utah Governor Gary Herbert criticises the recent Chevron over oil spill

Can you go through Utah Governor Gary Herbert criticises the recent Chevron over oil spill and remove any sources that are not used? This will make the review process go much, much faster. --LauraHale (talk) 09:25, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Utah Governor Gary Herbert criticises Chevron oil spill

I wanted you to know what's going on with this right now.

I'm in process of reviewing it. Given the way you've been struggling to get this into shape (and I remember you've had problems with previous articles, too), I mean to do a complete source-check, so that there are no unknown problems with the current text.

That said, there's a basic problem that will likely (not certainly, I'm giving myself time to mull it over) — likely cause me to not-ready it. I believe one of the previous reviews advised starting from scratch when refocusing; the current problem may be related to that. Anyway, I didn't want you to be blindsided if the current review comes out not-ready, and I wanted to let you know I am putting in a comprehensive effort here so I can provide maximum feedback either way. --Pi zero (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

One point to clarify: I want to give this article a clear path to publication. That's why I'm doing a complete source-check: Right now, the article looks scary to reviewers, because the source-check seems sure to be a lot of work. Even if I not-ready it on some specific problems, a later review will be way easier if all the text that's there now is already know to be verified. So, hopefully, once I'd done this, a modify-and-resubmit can get re-reviewed quickly because it doesn't look scary to reviewers. --Pi zero (talk) 17:31, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

I still plan to complete the source-check, but since it became clear the problems were really too much for passing, I've not-ready'd the article to get it out of the {{under review}} state. --Pi zero (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

┌──────┘
Perhaps I was over-optimistic; I found more problems in the source-check than I'd anticipated. Fwiw, though, I did complete it, and commented on the article talk. --Pi zero (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2013 (UTC)