Talk:'Save the Children' organisation suspends all activities in Afghanistan after ISIL attack

Number of deadly victims among the non-IS militants

There seem to be at least four (three of whom were staff members of Save the Children), but other sources say there are five or six. There's still a lot of uncertainty right now, so the article may need adaptations on this point. De Wikischim (talk) 21:38, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

You submitted this for review at 21:34, but now more than 90 minutes later, you are still editing and changing the article. Please don't submit until you are ready and satisfied with your work. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:26, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: it seems rather sure now that six people have been killed by the attackers. Especially the Guardian article is clear about this. There are more details about this in the text here now. De Wikischim (talk) 10:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4378089 [Not ready]

Revision 4378089 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I had done a lot of copy-edit to the article when I started my review. Midway through, I noticed a disturbing point-by-point similarity to The Guardian article listed as a source. I, obviously, can't say for sure, but it feels like it was the same article, but with sentences reworded. I noticed it when I made my edit about the 'trend' not being in the sources, but then I saw, the 'trend' was in the Guardian source and only there. After that, it looked and felt like a re-writing of the Guardian, even with the numbers; and that other sources were added as fluff. I hope, I am wrong, so re-submit for review for another reviewer, if I am. 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 4378089 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I had done a lot of copy-edit to the article when I started my review. Midway through, I noticed a disturbing point-by-point similarity to The Guardian article listed as a source. I, obviously, can't say for sure, but it feels like it was the same article, but with sentences reworded. I noticed it when I made my edit about the 'trend' not being in the sources, but then I saw, the 'trend' was in the Guardian source and only there. After that, it looked and felt like a re-writing of the Guardian, even with the numbers; and that other sources were added as fluff. I hope, I am wrong, so re-submit for review for another reviewer, if I am. 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.

• I agree, a quick check confirms very extensive similarities. Please see the compact advice at WN:PILLARS#own and discussion at WN:Plagiarism. (There are other significant difficulties with this article, but there's no point getting into them with a large-scale "copyvio" problem.) --Pi zero (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

The article says "terrorist attack" which is not neutral. The headline says "IS" which is an ambigious abbreviation. Had it be "Islamic State" it is inaccurate, and also biased. Use ISIL instead. Write "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant" for the first time, and from the next time, you can write ISIL. Avoid information in parenthesis. Spell out small numbers. Restrict lede for answering only the basic 5Ws and Hs.
223.237.226.119 (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, some improvements have been made (thanks for that), while some other information was deleted for unclear reasons (I've put an eyewitness report back about how they escaped from the building, I really see no need to remove that). I do not understand why all the links in the text to WP had to be removed (I see user:Mikemoral has put them back, thanks.) Furthermore, I do not think the original version as I uploaded it yesterday night can really be called an example of copyvio; there were perhaps somewhere three or four succeeding words which matched certain text parts in the sources, but surely no entire sentences which had been copied (apart from the quotes, but those are still in it). I'd rather not be accused that soon of plagiarism (which is, actually, a delict). De Wikischim (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Update: I have made some further changes to the article. I've changed the lede again too; for the main topic, it is important to mention immediately the fact that three staff members of Save the Children were killed. The lede only mentioned that four people were injured; it's a little ridiculous, in my view, to mention only that there were people injured and not immediately that other people were killed. I think this is surely ready for review now. De Wikischim (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I am going to revert most of your edits before it breaks the flow, adds complexity of the lede — it was already humongous.
223.237.197.23 (talk) 10:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Why? Can you please be a little clearer about why my changes are that wrong?--De Wikischim (talk) 10:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Minimising info in lede, fixing article flow, removing claims which can be questioned.
•–• 11:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@De Wikischim: I am editing the article -- if anyone interrupts, and I get an edit conflict, I am going to overwrite it. Don't say that I did not warn you before.
•–• 11:07, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I have undone this again - sorry but you cannot simply claim an article this way. The version which you just put back twice had some evident errors (mainly linguistic) which I had just corrected and it had other shortcomings too. Please try to discuss individual points here, instead of simply undoing a great amount of work done by others. I'm waiting. De Wikischim (talk) 11:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

An example of a linguistic error which you've just put back for the second or third time: lot of attacks on the rescue organisations has taken place (a better word choice would be a lot of or lots of, I've chosen the last option). This morning I had added some other verifiable info which you deleted by simply putting an older version back. Furthermore, can you explain why Save the Children's official statement must be split into two separate paragraphs? De Wikischim (talk) 11:18, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, I'll wait for some minutes now to let you go ahead, but I do not accept that you're ruining the info I added and other improvements. So those changes will be put back again shortly. De Wikischim (talk) 11:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Let's not jump into how much your work was lost because I literally had to rewrite the article from scratch and your edits did the following:

1. diff=4378229&oldid=4378226 It breaks the continuity (and that happens to be the first edit you make, and per the wiki software, I have to deal with things from ground zero) We can break the official statement, this article deals with stopping the services, and not the attack, so it was important to tell that in the lede. But talking about when they are going to continue is for background information, which goes for the bottom of the pyramid, and helps connecting to the other attacks, and finding a link between them. With the other part of statement not at bottom, the last paragraph feels out of place.
2. diff=next&oldid=4378230 taken care of.
3. diff=next&oldid=4378230 added the info about basement -- could not find how they escaped, with only available statement from the govt. official.
4. diff=next&oldid=4378231 taken care of.
5. diff=next&oldid=4378232 taken care of.
6. diff=next&oldid=4378234 diff=next&oldid=4378234 could not verify.
7. diff=next&oldid=4378241 partly taken care of, and there requires more background information for "ambush", besides, it is too close to source, otherwise.
8. diff=next&oldid=4378243 lede should be used only to introduce the readers answering Ws and Hs for the focus of the article. If the article was about the attack, that would be meaningful, for service stoppage, it isn't.
9. diff=next&oldid=4378245 there is one source claiming it was suicide car explosion however, the minister/spokesperson said nothing about finding a sixth body, so avoiding ambigious claims.

Seems I answered everything.
•–• 11:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry but to my idea, this is mainly your own opinion on how this article should be. For example, the info about the people who were rescued from the basement can simply be found back in Guardian, as well as the fact they escaped through a back exit. That latter info was already in the article even yesterday. First you delete it, and then you ask here how they've escaped? De Wikischim (talk) 11:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

actually, go ahead. Do what you want. I don’t care. You are not clear about the focus or have any idea about the need of continuous and proper flow. Do what you want.
223.237.197.23 (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice, thanks a lot for letting me go ahead. Meanwhile I have restored most of the relevant info you had earlier deleted. I also noticed again some newly introduced language errors and some older ones which I had already corrected before - it's apparently you who put them back afterwards. De Wikischim (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Acagastya writes above: this article deals with stopping the services, and not the attack » incorrect, this article deals with BOTH. These two news events are so heavily intertwined that they cannot be discussed separately. (However, if someone else still wants to write a separate article on the attack itself - just go ahead). De Wikischim (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

you don’t know how to segregate it. Your focus is not clear. And you still think you know what you are doing.
•–• 18:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Can someone else (user:SVTCobra, user:Pi zero) comment on this too please? Is it really such a serious problem that the article now focuses both on the ISIL attack and the withdrawal of Save the Children from Afghanistan which is an immediate consequence of the attack? Acagastya's main remark is that I don't have any idea of what I'm doing, which is not really a good basis for further discussion. The other option would be to write two separate articles, but even then they surely must be linked to each other. In my idea, everything is so strongly connected that it is very justified to treat it on one single page. In addition, writing two separate articles would take a lot of extra time. I cannot spend all my time only here. De Wikischim (talk) 20:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a problem. There seems to be a direct cause and effect linking the two events. --SVTCobra 20:42, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's my main point too - thanks for the comment. By the way, the text has been completely re-written since yesterday night. So if there was any copyright infringement at all as you had remarked (which I don't believe, however), then it is fully gone now. De Wikischim (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

@De Wikischim: We use the term "copyvio" as a term of art, covering both to copyright infringement proper and similarities that fall under the heading of plagiarism (there's usually no reason to draw a line between the two since either is a reason not to publish). The problem before was quite pronounced, and if you don't understand what the problem was there's nothing to prevent you from doing it again which would be bad (the best that could happen would be that you'd expend reviewer time and effort dealing with your mistake, which you should devoutly wish to avoid doing). I suggest rereading WN:PILLARS#own and WN:Plagiarism. Btw, the problem has not been completely eliminated; mostly, perhaps, but a quick check still flags out at least one or two over-length too-similar passages. --Pi zero (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

OK, if you could indicate more exactly the passages that it's about, perhaps I can still re-write them. By the way, sometimes it is just very difficult to tell the same things in 100% different wordings - "real" news sites are sometimes worse on this point. De Wikischim (talk) 22:10, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, "real" news sites sometimes do things that are Just Awful. Like forgetting to answer "when", as if they'd forgotten it's one of the five Ws. Although I suspect such small-scale similarities of phrasing between "real" news sites are often because both sites paid to be allowed to use material from the same wire service. --Pi zero (talk) 22:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've now replaced the quote from ISIL with a paraphrase so that it no longer corresponds to the quote as it was formulated elsewhere on news sites. De Wikischim (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Title

• Why does the title need to include the word "organisation"? Green Giant (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear for a general international audience what Save the Children is. --Pi zero (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I didn't find this addition in the title necessary either (comparable to saying "US president Donald Trump" etc.). On the other hand, this is not such a big issue for me. De Wikischim (talk) 08:49, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I was just curious because I know the charity quite well but Pi zero's explanation is good enough for me. Green Giant (talk) 10:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4378534 [Passed]

Revision 4378534 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Tips: Try to avoid using words like "today", "tomorrow", "yesterday". Even if we publish the day it was written, due to time-zones, it can easily be confusing for the reader. Use absolutes. Try to avoid breaking up an eyewitness account. It is jarring for the reader to have bits and pieces interspersed in the article. Avoid having duplicate sources. It doesn't add to the credibility of the article and only makes the reviewer's job harder. 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 4378534 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:41, 26 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Tips: Try to avoid using words like "today", "tomorrow", "yesterday". Even if we publish the day it was written, due to time-zones, it can easily be confusing for the reader. Use absolutes. Try to avoid breaking up an eyewitness account. It is jarring for the reader to have bits and pieces interspersed in the article. Avoid having duplicate sources. It doesn't add to the credibility of the article and only makes the reviewer's job harder. 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.