Talk:Australian school in Westboro's sights

Description of Matthew Shepard

The phrase describing Matthew Shepard was rather similar to the source phrase. It's routine for news sites to simply draw material from their own past articles; so I simply subbed in the phrase used to describe him in a recent published article. Note, this can only be done if the previous article is cited, which one does by listing it in a Related news section (Related news is how you cite a previously published Wikinews article). But, give that it is cited, our license allows our material to be reused. --Pi zero (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2505736 [Not ready]

Revision 2505736 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 12:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: At least, deep questions here; see below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede should briefly summarize the focus, by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about it. It should also be self-contained, explaining the significance of the focus for an international audience. However, here the first paragraph doesn't answer most of the reasonably-answerable basic questions (doesn't really answer what or where, really doesn't answer when or why or how), and also doesn't really explain things for an international audience because it assumes the reader already knows what the Westboro Baptist Church is. This topic is a most interesting exercise in neutrality. Consider how the Westboro Baptist Church functions; this is described somewhat in the now-listed Related news article. They thrive on publicity; they even get part of their income off of winning freedom-of-speech lawsuits against people they succeed in provoking into objecting to their protests. They want people to talk about their latest stunt; the more talk the better. The news media plays into this agenda, because it sells copies. Publishing an article along the lines of 'WBC is going to hold another protest' promotes their agenda. I'd sure feel better about the neutrality of an article on this topic if it contained something that brought out the publicity-seeking nature of the WBC. 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 2505736 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 12:42, 28 March 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: At least, deep questions here; see below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede should briefly summarize the focus, by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about it. It should also be self-contained, explaining the significance of the focus for an international audience. However, here the first paragraph doesn't answer most of the reasonably-answerable basic questions (doesn't really answer what or where, really doesn't answer when or why or how), and also doesn't really explain things for an international audience because it assumes the reader already knows what the Westboro Baptist Church is. This topic is a most interesting exercise in neutrality. Consider how the Westboro Baptist Church functions; this is described somewhat in the now-listed Related news article. They thrive on publicity; they even get part of their income off of winning freedom-of-speech lawsuits against people they succeed in provoking into objecting to their protests. They want people to talk about their latest stunt; the more talk the better. The news media plays into this agenda, because it sells copies. Publishing an article along the lines of 'WBC is going to hold another protest' promotes their agenda. I'd sure feel better about the neutrality of an article on this topic if it contained something that brought out the publicity-seeking nature of the WBC. 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.

NPOV - publicity seeking.

I have located at least two articles - they are older, but I have noted that they demonstrate Westboro having had abandoned picketing in exchange for airtime. Would these suffice or should I find something more recent?

Only the focus necessarily has to be recent, for freshness. Background information can go back and back (some of our political articles have background information going back to World War II). -Pi zero (talk) 13:06, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I have completed the tasks and resubmitted for review. Thanks.

Review of revision 2509256 [Passed]

Revision 2509256 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The new passage, on the Giffords shooting memorial, was way too close to the source. With some hesitation, I rephrased it. A reviewer has to be quite reticent about this sort of thing; but one passage, in a nontrivial article by a relative newcomer, seemed not-unreasonable. I did not, however, find in the sources that they'd done the trade-picketing-for-airtime on multiple occasions. 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 2509256 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:15, 29 March 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The new passage, on the Giffords shooting memorial, was way too close to the source. With some hesitation, I rephrased it. A reviewer has to be quite reticent about this sort of thing; but one passage, in a nontrivial article by a relative newcomer, seemed not-unreasonable. I did not, however, find in the sources that they'd done the trade-picketing-for-airtime on multiple occasions. 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.

• I should probably have given some thought to tweaking the headline, before publishing. (We don't casually change headlines after publication.) Ah, well. --Pi zero (talk) 21:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)