Talk:Wikinews Shorts: August 4, 2010
Not shorts[edit]
Many of these articles meet the three-paragraph minimum. Why are you compiling them into a Shorts article? Benny the mascot (talk) 04:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree Benny, the Kenyan vote and the Connecticut beer man are long enough (just) to be stand alone articles). The other two could be combined to make a shorts article. --InfantGorilla (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I think they should all be shorts articles compiled into one Wikinews shorts. As stand-alone articles, they would be on the small side and plus since no Wikinews shorts have been made since February, I would like to get shorts started again. Cheers, --Shankarnikhil88 (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)
- I know from bitter experience on both sides of the fence, that shorts can take longer to review (reviewer has to read at least 8 sources on diverse topics)
- You can still have published shorts with just the two articles. Anyway, Fetchcomms already posted a stub for Nine dead in shooting rampage at Connecticut beer warehouse, so I moved your text there.
- I like shorts too - three cheers for reviving them.
- --InfantGorilla (talk)
Review of revision 1071537 [Failed][edit]
 |
Revision 1071537 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I only got as far as the first short (BP oil spill) before failing this. Here's one example of a copyright vio: Source: "BP has described the static kill as only half the solution." Our article: "BP has stated that static kill is only half the solution." That's just the example one. There are more, some less obvious than others. I keep saying this: you can't just rewrite the words of the source, or rearrange their sentences. You have to read the sources, absorb the relevant information (note taking while reading helps a great deal), and then write the article in your own words. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Revision 1071537 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I only got as far as the first short (BP oil spill) before failing this. Here's one example of a copyright vio: Source: "BP has described the static kill as only half the solution." Our article: "BP has stated that static kill is only half the solution." That's just the example one. There are more, some less obvious than others. I keep saying this: you can't just rewrite the words of the source, or rearrange their sentences. You have to read the sources, absorb the relevant information (note taking while reading helps a great deal), and then write the article in your own words. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Review of revision 1072051 [Passed][edit]
 |
Revision 1072051 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 1072051 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |