Wikinews:Water cooler/assistance/archives/2011/April

article published

Hey guys i've just written an article recently and it's had a (revert) put beside it, what does that Mean??

Hi B.j Shepherd! thanks for the article!
The article was moved to a slightly different title, but then it was moved back. The moving back was the 'revert'; it wasn't a revert of what you had written.
Your article was reviewed, but it did not pass the peer review. The reviewer noted on the talk page that the article includes copyright violations, may be written with a biased point of view, and does not follow some elements of the Wikinews Style Guide. Hopefully you and other contributors here at en.WN will be able to address these concerns quickly so it will have a chance to pass a second review. Normally one tries to fix the reviewer's concerns in the article, or discuss them on the talk page, before asking for a second review. - Amgine | t 04:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I read the situation differently. An article on that news story was written on Wednesday and published early Thursday. B.j Shepherds's article written a little more than two days after that article was published. Following the failed review, BRS turned this article into a redirect to the published article. B.j Shepherd undid that redirection and resubmitted the article for review (with almost no change; apparently neither the significance of the redirect nor the meaning of the failed review had been communicated and understood). Some other editors made some edits to the article. Subsequently, BRS restored the redirect to the published article, with the edit summary "revert". B.j Shepherd then undid BRS's redirect and, apparently, all the intervening edits by other editors. On the face of it, the story would now be stale if it hadn't already been published. --Pi zero (talk) 05:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

article published

so if I get it right, my article is published?? (Sorry, this whole thing is new to me, but I'm learning.) thanks for your input guys

Unfortunately, this particular article doesn't look salvageable. There's already a published article covering that story, and yours is now stale. Something new would have to come to light, and the article about it would be a different article. --Pi zero (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACLU, EFF article needing review

  • It is now over 12 hours since I notified those interviewed for this article that it was pending review. Would someone please do me the courtesy of reviewing something I poured a significant amount of effort into? The OR component has already been cleared on the talk page, so potential reviewers are not restricted to accredited reporters. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:40, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has rewritten parts of this published article, added a section, and added three sources dated after the article's publication. (Article dated April 7, three sources from April 8 added.) Could someone review these changes? The last of the three changes is correct as it changes a misspelling of "pass" to "past". Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 12:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]