Michael.C.Wright

It is approximately 8:05 AM, PDT where this user lives. Refresh

Archives: 1

Review comments about removed content

I would suggest clarifying more specifically when a content was removed, in reviewer feedback. Most likely someone may want to work out where it came from. It can be disconcerting to dig through article edit history to figure out what was removed. So instead of "some unverified sentence was removed", rather, "the sentence about '36 staff in the jail' was removed". Saves time on subsequent revision -- next user can see which part was removed straight away -- and hopefully does not kill too much of your time. What do you think? Gryllida (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Gryllida — I agree with your broader point that reviewer feedback should be as specific as reasonably possible. It does make things easier for current and future contributors and improves transparency when changes are made.

That said, because you didn’t specify where the quote came from, I’m assuming you’re referring to my recent review of "Professional baseball is back in Tucson, Arizona, thanks to relocation of Mexican team". If so, I think there may have been a misquote. I didn’t write “some unverified sentence was removed.” The review summary actually stated:

"Statements previously presented in Wikinews voice were rephrased or removed where not directly supported by the cited sources. In particular (emphasis added), unsourced claims about the Saguaros' status were removed and generalizations about the reasons for the move were clarified."

And the corresponding edit summary[1] was:

"Remove unsupported claim. Tucson.com does not mention the Saguaros are 'currently one of the highest-level teams in the area'."

I try to provide meaningful explanations when removing material, especially when it relates to sourcing or attribution. I also think it's reasonable to expect that contributors review the article history and summaries. They're part of the process and exist for precisely this reason; to understand what was edited and why.

That said, I appreciate the reminder. I’ll continue making an effort to be clear and specific, particularly when edits might not be self-explanatory. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 20:47, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd wager that the first sentence in that review feedback quote can be deleted without loss of meaning, and would make it clearer for the readers. Gryllida (talk) 22:00, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

See also third paragraph of feedback here. Gryllida (talk) 22:01, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Gryllida. I read your follow-up, and I stand by the level of specificity provided in both the review summary and the edit history. For reference, the third paragraph of that review stated:

"Removed subjective or unsupported claims, replacing them with factually supported titles and phrasing."

And the corresponding edit summary was:

"Remove unsupported quote. Replace with titles supported by all three sources."

Taken together, I believe these provide sufficient clarity to anyone reviewing the article history, which, in my view, is a reasonable expectation for contributors working collaboratively.

I appreciate peer input in general, but I also believe that feedback on the review process carries more weight when it reflects consistent adherence to verification and attribution standards. In this case, I don't believe your suggestions reflect a shortcoming in the review. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 22:30, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

I am concerned how another user would read it. They can, but not always do check history. Because of that, if there was a significant edit done by reviewer, it helps to put 3-4 words to specify thst in review feedback. This also helps author to more likely to learn. (I wanted to ping an author by mentioning nick inside the review comment, but the software said nope. It would be nice if that worked.) Gryllida 16:54, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Indent

I have noted in several discussions that Wikinewsies' usage of indenting seems quite different from Wikipedians, and just now, you mentioned a need to indent in your edit to your comment at the water cooler/miscellaneous page, which seems worth discussing. I am not sure why you thought it was necessary to add an indent, because in Wikipedia, the level of indentation is used to show which comment you are replying to; to illustrate, on Wikipedia, if one is replying to a comment with an 'indentation level' of 3 (in markup written as ":::"), then the reply always has to be at an indentation level of 4, even if it is written after several interceding comments. GreekApple123 (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we have any policy or norm on indentation beyond how the visual editor handles them (which is basically as you described). Since you asked how I approach it:

• The 'reply' function handles newlines oddly—it doesn’t insert a blank line between paragraphs, which makes comments look cluttered to me. So I don't often use the "reply" link.
• I'm already verbose, and when my long comment directly follows someone else's without an indent, it feels visually cluttered—like it blends into theirs.

It's a personal, visual preference. I often use pings or @User to indicate a direct reply to another's comment.

In the comment you linked to above, I was not replying directly to anyone, but clarifying my position to any and all readers. The extra indent past your comment makes the two comments more visually distinct from each other. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:51, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I think the way that I would summarize it then is that the Wikipedia approach is to treat indentation as demonstrating continuity of theme/idea between comments, while that is often followed less here in Wikinews, as people prefer to be able to display urgency, individuality, and quickly highlighting new threads of discussion. I guess that kind of mirrors the difference in workflow and product outcome between Wikipedia and Wikinews themselves! GreekApple123 (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think my personal way of handling my own replies should be considered how Wikinews does anything in general. In fact, just by stating something, there is almost certainly to be at least one person who will object to what I say, simply because I said it. So I'd take it with a grain of salt. ツ

I'll certainly be more mindful of it moving forward.

p.s., this comment was the result of the "reply" link and you can see how it mashes the paragraphs together. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:47, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

I did not understand the difference, @GreekApple123 Gryllida 16:49, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Feedback

I got this comment

‐---------

Edits as part of the review process have been made to bring the article into compliance with WN:NPOV, WN:SOURCE, and WN:IP:

Removed or revised statements not supported by cited sources, including the claim that Biden's treatment involves "daily medication for six weeks" and that "his medical team are also optimistic."

Eliminated unattributed editorializing and added appropriate attribution for direct and paraphrased statements.

Removed content not directly related to the focal event (Biden’s remarks on his cancer diagnosis), such as commentary on political divisions and his presidential record.

Reordered paragraphs to follow the inverted pyramid structure per WN:IP.

Removed test category and added appropriate publication category; removed redundant year.

Minor punctuation and tense adjustments for clarity and consistency.

Added an image to enhance the article.

Sources section has been formatted per WN:Source.

---

I have a few suggestions,

• Use active voice. It is easier to understand. "I removed the sentence" rather than "the sentence was removed".
• When noting removed claims, rather than "removed claims not supported in cited sources", suggest "removed claims that I could not find in cited sources". I think it is more fair to write that you did not find them then to write that they are not there. This, to me, sounds like a more open for conversation and collaboration, less dismissive.

Hope it helps.

---

Gryllida 16:46, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Help with story

Hi there. Please can you help me with the page Wikinews:Story preparation/Competitive Scottish Parliament by-election held. It has been prepared but not reviewed. Moondragon21 18:10, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

@Moondragon21, Please review WN:Style#Headlines — the current headline needs a present-tense verb, active voice, and more specific detail. Consider revising the headline before moving the article.

To move the page out of "prepared" status, click "Move" at the top of the article. In the "New title" field, remove "Story preparation/" and just place your new headline. Add a reason in the "Other/additional reason" field and click "Move page."

Per WN:Source, only cite sources you used, avoid duplicates that don’t add new info, and note any conflicting accounts in the article. I would recommend going back over your sources and consider using {{verify}} to ensure all sources are used and all statements have a source.

Once the article is all buttoned up and you feel its ready for review, you can either click the "submit for review" button in the developing notice box at the top of the article, or change {{develop}} to {{review}} in the editor.

Let me know if you have any questions! —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:56, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

suggestion

sorry this is time consuming but i suggest tagging contributors when posting messages at an article talk . then maybe they will read. Gryllida 12:35, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Balloon accident article

Thank you for the publish! @Michael.C.Wright BigKrow (talk) 20:20, 17 June 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the article contribution. ツ —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:36, 18 June 2025 (UTC)