I see two difficulties here that are beyond my purview as an independent reviewer.User:DehgelUser:DannyS712
Inconsistent storyline. The headline says there were three earthquakes. The lede says there was an earthquake preceded by tremors, which would seem to suggest first smaller stuff and then a big thing. The body says there were three discrete events of which the first was the largest. Note that earthquakes don't become inherently newsworthy until magnitude 6.0 (WN:Relevance#Earthquakes). These three elements (headline/lede/body) don't feel like they're all describing the same thing. Also, the headline should "tell the most important and unique thing"; saying three earthquakes occured in the southern Philippines is not as distinctive as we'd like.
The lede should, in a short to-the-point summary of the focal event, succinctly answer as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H and establish this focal event is newsworthy. The current first paragraph doesn't provide enough information for all this; what is distinctive, what is news-relevant, about all this?
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 see two difficulties here that are beyond my purview as an independent reviewer.User:DehgelUser:DannyS712
Inconsistent storyline. The headline says there were three earthquakes. The lede says there was an earthquake preceded by tremors, which would seem to suggest first smaller stuff and then a big thing. The body says there were three discrete events of which the first was the largest. Note that earthquakes don't become inherently newsworthy until magnitude 6.0 (WN:Relevance#Earthquakes). These three elements (headline/lede/body) don't feel like they're all describing the same thing. Also, the headline should "tell the most important and unique thing"; saying three earthquakes occured in the southern Philippines is not as distinctive as we'd like.
The lede should, in a short to-the-point summary of the focal event, succinctly answer as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H and establish this focal event is newsworthy. The current first paragraph doesn't provide enough information for all this; what is distinctive, what is news-relevant, about all this?
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.
This is improving; thank you. Storyline is more consistent between the parts (headline, lede, body). There is some difficulty to clear up concerning the focus and what makes it significant:
As I now understand this story, the main thing that happened was the first and biggest earthquake, magnitude 6.3, on Wednesday. There have been several additional, smaller quakes in the region since. From these happenings, for a Wikinews article one must choose a focal event and how to present it. There are at least a couple of ways this might be done.
The way the article is now written, the focal event is the most recent quake. The two main problems with this are that there is only one source for that most recent quake (we want two sources for the focal event), and the quake isn't big enough to make it automatically newsworthy without some further explanation. A quake of magnitude 6.0 or more, we would usually consider newsworthy even before we know whether there is anything else of significance about it (such as casualties or property damage); but a magnitude 5.0 quake needs some further information: Were there casualties or property damage? If this was another in a series of quakes, is that unusual? (How unusual?)
One way to approach this would be to make the Wednesday quake the focus; it's big enough to be relevant on its own. Mention in the lede that there have been several more quakes in the area, and that one was on Saturday thus establishing continued freshness.
Another approach would be to make the whole group of quakes the focus.
Whatever adjustment one makes to the focus, the headline, lead, and body, all need some adjustment for it. The headline now says 'another quake his the area', which doesn't really "tell the most important and unique thing": it's not specific enough to convey any uniqueness. Any earthquake in the area could match that description. Note also that the second paragraph says that only three quakes occurred; it needs to be rephrased a bit to allow for the fact that there was another one on Saturday.
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.
This is improving; thank you. Storyline is more consistent between the parts (headline, lede, body). There is some difficulty to clear up concerning the focus and what makes it significant:
As I now understand this story, the main thing that happened was the first and biggest earthquake, magnitude 6.3, on Wednesday. There have been several additional, smaller quakes in the region since. From these happenings, for a Wikinews article one must choose a focal event and how to present it. There are at least a couple of ways this might be done.
The way the article is now written, the focal event is the most recent quake. The two main problems with this are that there is only one source for that most recent quake (we want two sources for the focal event), and the quake isn't big enough to make it automatically newsworthy without some further explanation. A quake of magnitude 6.0 or more, we would usually consider newsworthy even before we know whether there is anything else of significance about it (such as casualties or property damage); but a magnitude 5.0 quake needs some further information: Were there casualties or property damage? If this was another in a series of quakes, is that unusual? (How unusual?)
One way to approach this would be to make the Wednesday quake the focus; it's big enough to be relevant on its own. Mention in the lede that there have been several more quakes in the area, and that one was on Saturday thus establishing continued freshness.
Another approach would be to make the whole group of quakes the focus.
Whatever adjustment one makes to the focus, the headline, lead, and body, all need some adjustment for it. The headline now says 'another quake his the area', which doesn't really "tell the most important and unique thing": it's not specific enough to convey any uniqueness. Any earthquake in the area could match that description. Note also that the second paragraph says that only three quakes occurred; it needs to be rephrased a bit to allow for the fact that there was another one on Saturday.
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.
In this case, the CNN source appears to have been replaced, erasing the record of earlier events. It would be fair to say I disapprove of this modern habit of msm (mainstream media); but, there it is. --Pi zero (talk) 22:52, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is one big and unwieldy article. Instead of chopping this thing down it maybe best to start all over. Also, the abbreviations are nuts, anything over like 7 letters will lose any reader. AZOperator (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See the detailed history of edits I made during review, to the first four paragraphs.
At the fifth paragraph, I encountered quite a lot of information I didn't find in the sources. Epicenter of the 5.0. Center of the 6.3. A 4.0 an hour later. I haven't deeply researched whether the 5.3 being located at Manay means the epicenter was there. I'd also feel better if we mentioned (since one of the sources does, and it's interesting) that the USGS reported a different magnitude for the Wednesday quake — and it seems relevant, if mentioning it at all, to know whether USGS stuck with their different magnitude for it.
I notice the sixth paragraph has an unnecessarily "according to CNN Philippines" (since, I'm figuring, we don't actually doubt CNN Philippines's reporting of what Phivolcs said. I have not, though, source-checked the last three paragraphs, except for copyvio — in which regard, my preliminary check identified the following copyvio problems in those paragaraphs:
sixth paragraph, "earthquake was the strongest" and "a total of 611 aftershocks" ought to be broken up.
eighth paragraph, six words starting with "seismically"; and the last ten words of the paragraph (starting with "a major").
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.
See the detailed history of edits I made during review, to the first four paragraphs.
At the fifth paragraph, I encountered quite a lot of information I didn't find in the sources. Epicenter of the 5.0. Center of the 6.3. A 4.0 an hour later. I haven't deeply researched whether the 5.3 being located at Manay means the epicenter was there. I'd also feel better if we mentioned (since one of the sources does, and it's interesting) that the USGS reported a different magnitude for the Wednesday quake — and it seems relevant, if mentioning it at all, to know whether USGS stuck with their different magnitude for it.
I notice the sixth paragraph has an unnecessarily "according to CNN Philippines" (since, I'm figuring, we don't actually doubt CNN Philippines's reporting of what Phivolcs said. I have not, though, source-checked the last three paragraphs, except for copyvio — in which regard, my preliminary check identified the following copyvio problems in those paragaraphs:
sixth paragraph, "earthquake was the strongest" and "a total of 611 aftershocks" ought to be broken up.
eighth paragraph, six words starting with "seismically"; and the last ten words of the paragraph (starting with "a major").
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.
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.
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.
