User talk:Bddpaux

My talk archive #1

User:Bddpaux/Archive 1

My talk archive #2

User:Bddpaux/Archive 2

FAC nomination

Two things, really.

• An article can't be nominated for FA until it's been archived. That's at least a week after publication, longer at times of slow output.
• Realistically, it's not FA material. Way too short. Take a look at WN:WIAFA.

--Pi zero (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

About 5 seconds after I nominated it, I went back and looked at the length more carefully.....it's awfully short. --Bddpaux (talk) 23:10, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I do identify with your enthusiasm about the pictures. Laura too has remarked on how well they're coming out. --Pi zero (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

I have given you a talk back just in case you missed my message. :) Curtaintoad curtain or toad 04:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews Writing contest 2013 is here. :) Please sign up to participate?

We've created the Wikinews:Writing contest 2013, which will start on April 1 and end on June 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 contest. It would be a really great time for you, as a Wikinews accredited reporter, to do some original reporting and conduct interviews. People should be around to interview to prevent a backlog, and several reviewers have access to scoop to make it easier to review any original reporting you do. If you are interested in signing up, please do so on Wikinews:Writing contest 2013/entrants. There is at least one prize on offer for the winner along with the opportunity to earn some barn stars as a way of thanking you for your participation. :D --LauraHale (talk) 10:18, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Boston Marathon

FYI

TUFKAAP is I believe now reviewing, and planning to not-ready, an article about it that was submitted by a University of Wollongong student. --Pi zero (talk) 19:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Multiple explosions hit Boston Marathon

Hi. I just wanted to give you a heads up that Multiple explosions hit Boston Marathon was published. While it meets all Wikinews's guidelines for publishing, during the review process, a fair amount of material was removed because it was not found in the article. In many cases, an article with this much unverifiable information would result in the article being marked as not ready. Given the breaking news aspect of this particular story, as the reviewer, I chose to just remove that information that was not verifiable based on the sources and to clarify the ambiguous statements like "it is believed" to properly credit the information. This was simpler and enabled the quicker publication of the story. As more information becomes available, or if a new perspective can be found on the topic, please feel free to write and submit another story on the topic. If you have any questions, please ask myself or another reviewer for assistance. For a faster response, if you can wait five minutes, we are often available on IRC to assist when we do review. --LauraHale (talk) 23:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Something like the bombing in Boston does not benefit at all from trying to write off broadcast live coverage. You're pulling the 'fog' the 24/7 news broadcasters are throwing out to keep people glued to their coverage.

For something like that, the only worthwhile OR is on-the-ground. Sorry. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 07:02, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Er? I could see writing off live broadcast coverage if it was televised press conference, but talking heads regurgitating... (I was watching the news and ABC24 was running the press conference with the police chief saying NO SUSPECT, and then they would flip to Boston local news which specifically said they had a suspect. It was so disconcerting.) Just unsure why this comment was left for Bddpaux unless I missed something? --LauraHale (talk) 07:11, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

One might well find, examining the page history carefully, that most of the material excised from the article during review was added by someone other than Bddpaux. --Pi zero (talk) 12:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

I commented on pretty much I think every major contributor's talk page since there were several, including at least one University of Wollongong student. Some of the things that I removed I knew I could verify (because I watched the Obama speech where the loss line was used). I intended to give basically a courtesy notification to all parties involved. The article that was published second was a lot stronger than the first article published, which was essentially a rush to publish while meeting all the bare requirements in order that we could have the time to develop a fuller, better article. (Hopefully that makes more sense.) I have always found Bddpaux's work to be pretty good, and there was no intend to suggest otherwise or that their contributions were the cause for the problems. (Though I did not consider it a bad thing in general to remind people checking for facts. My little bit of review analysis showed that accredited reporters like myself [probably mostly me] are one of the biggest cohorts of problems when it comes to reviews being not ready because of verification issues. I'm tired. Long day. My apologies. Babbling.) --LauraHale (talk) 12:31, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Brian's comment is interesting in that, technically, yes policy here allows "observing" live feeds then using that as OR. HOWEVER, prudent thought (and experience!!!) reveals that even the big names are sometimes grabbing at all bits of flotsam that float their way. Proof, once again, that breaking stories should generally be kept very short, unless you're right there in the fray yourself. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

• Pretty much spot-on. As Laura states, a televised press conference is a good one, we stand a chance of the same starting run as the mainstream in-attendance. The talking heads? They'll seize on any old cobblers, and you can end up less-informed trying to follow a breaking story like the bombings via them. Wasn't dissing Bddpaux, Laura; I'd seen a few diffs holding notes from the aforementioned "talking heads" and wanted to highlight the risks. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 15:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Longview, Texas police involved in standoff with unnamed gunman‎

I was lucky enough, for once, to be able to start reviewing your genuinely breaking article almost the moment you'd submitted it. Unfortunately, by the time I was loading the sources, about half an hour after you'd submitted, one of the sources had been updated to say the standoff had ended. Now that's breaking. :-S  --Pi zero (talk) 23:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)