Talk:44 dead and over 300,000 homeless after flooding in Brazil
Should Wikinews consider DigitalJournal.com a reliable source? Open for thoughts. --SVTCobra 00:21, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- They seem to have some pretty stringent quality control, from what I can tell by reading their Wikipedia article and their website. I think we could probably safely accept it as a reliable source. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Would you say their reliability is better or worse than Wikinews? Are their controls better or worse? Wikinews is not generally considered a reliable source. --SVTCobra 00:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- From what I understand by reading their WP article, they screen potential contributors first, before allowing them to write articles, so I suppose in that regard their quality control could be considered better than ours. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- The page could be modified to the next lowest count of 308,000 listed by AP on May 11 Brazil boosts flood aid for 308K left homeless
- From what I understand by reading their WP article, they screen potential contributors first, before allowing them to write articles, so I suppose in that regard their quality control could be considered better than ours. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:47, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Would you say their reliability is better or worse than Wikinews? Are their controls better or worse? Wikinews is not generally considered a reliable source. --SVTCobra 00:39, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
SriMesh | talk 02:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
- Changed from Digital Journal to APSriMesh | talk 04:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Image[edit]
The image of the states highlighted which were affected by the flood is under question in commons which is curious as a public domain image was used, so a discussion has been started there. I will probably change the image to File:Brazil pol94.jpg depending on that curious conversation. It had been similar to the highlighted maps of provinces/countries affected by Swine flu. Will re-make it.SriMesh | talk 02:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Review[edit]
 |
Revision 817814 of this article has been reviewed by Mike Halterman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: All the sources looked fine to me except Digitaljournal, which I was BOLD and removed. Well-written, changed some typos with source formatting. 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 817814 of this article has been reviewed by Mike Halterman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 07:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: All the sources looked fine to me except Digitaljournal, which I was BOLD and removed. Well-written, changed some typos with source formatting. 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. |