Talk:British rail minister Claire Perry steps down

International audience

What country is this about? The headline and lede should both make this clear. --Pi zero (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I am unaware of how to edit the headline.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Russell's teapot (talk • contribs) .

@Russell's teapot: you need to move the page. See Help:Renaming (moving) a page.
acagastya 16:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I can`t see nor with ctrl-F find a move button, I am using the default skin, where am I going wrong?-Russell's teapot

@Russell's teapot: Your account here is less than four days old, so the wiki software won't yet allow you to move pages. Tell us here what you'd like it renamed to, and we can help you. When you do have the ability to move pages, it should show up on the control bar at the top of the page, way over toward the right, on a dropdown menu. (Always use the move option on the article page, not its talk page; if you move the talk page, it leaves the article behind.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

British rail minister Claire Perry steps down, thanks. --Russell's teapot (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4233667 [Passed]

Revision 4233667 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There were biases introduced through analysis, some of it implicit in the way things were said. For example: The lede as submitted said she resigned after a week of failures at Southern, and a later passage (second paragraph iirc) said the dispute with the union had 'come to a head' this week; but those are both analytical. Actually I got the impression from the sources this week was mostly more of the same, except for the 341 trains cut and more rhetoric by politicians. The suggestion that this week was especially bad probably shouldn't be presented even in summary, and even if it were (in some mild way, likely avoiding the judgemental word "failures"), the facts behind it ought then to be presented clearly later in the article so the reader can make their own assessment of things. Rather than analysis, providing more background facts is a preferred technique as our hope is to inform readers so they can do the sort of informed analysis that isn't our place to do for them. Part of the reason Wikinews can use objectivity as a primary means of neutrality is that, in contrast ot an enclyclopedia, we report down at the level of concrete details, whereas an encyclopedia spends most of its time summarizing. News writing should try to avoid summarizing, which involves subjective choices. (One interesting case study: The BBC source said less than other sources about the labor dispute, passenger protests, or service disruptions, but offered some interesting — yet non-judgemental — perspective on the motive for the resignation by reporting that no reason was given at the time and then quoting things she'd said earlier in the week.) 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 4233667 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There were biases introduced through analysis, some of it implicit in the way things were said. For example: The lede as submitted said she resigned after a week of failures at Southern, and a later passage (second paragraph iirc) said the dispute with the union had 'come to a head' this week; but those are both analytical. Actually I got the impression from the sources this week was mostly more of the same, except for the 341 trains cut and more rhetoric by politicians. The suggestion that this week was especially bad probably shouldn't be presented even in summary, and even if it were (in some mild way, likely avoiding the judgemental word "failures"), the facts behind it ought then to be presented clearly later in the article so the reader can make their own assessment of things. Rather than analysis, providing more background facts is a preferred technique as our hope is to inform readers so they can do the sort of informed analysis that isn't our place to do for them. Part of the reason Wikinews can use objectivity as a primary means of neutrality is that, in contrast ot an enclyclopedia, we report down at the level of concrete details, whereas an encyclopedia spends most of its time summarizing. News writing should try to avoid summarizing, which involves subjective choices. (One interesting case study: The BBC source said less than other sources about the labor dispute, passenger protests, or service disruptions, but offered some interesting — yet non-judgemental — perspective on the motive for the resignation by reporting that no reason was given at the time and then quoting things she'd said earlier in the week.) 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.