Talk:Canadian soldier who filmed himself sexually abusing colleague has appeal dismissed

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Review of revision 4710213 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4710213 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not ready: One independent source. We need at least two.
  • Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer: None added.

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 4710213 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not ready: One independent source. We need at least two.
  • Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer: None added.

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.

Independent sources[edit]

Is the 2023 court judgment not considered a seperate source? QuantumControl (talk) 03:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independent as in independent from the source, i.e. published by, say, CBC or CTV or Global News or another news source. The judgement itself, by being the literal text which is the article's focus, does not count any more than an article about a company in legal trouble could consider either the company's press release or the court's charges as independent. JJLiu112 (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would commentary on the decision by a legal news service (say this article (requires free registration)) be considered a suitable independent source? QuantumControl (talk) 03:44, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would, but for me it asks either to subscribe or sign up for a fourteen-day free trial. JJLiu112 (talk) 04:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says you have to subscribe but I signed up and it gave me access for free. I can give you my account details if you want. QuantumControl (talk) 04:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Try signing up and see if it works for you. It's pretty misleading in its wording. QuantumControl (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Lemme do that. JJLiu112 (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Please resubmit for review. However, this is a 14-day free trial. It's quite literally skirting the line between paywall and free. Other reviewers might be less lax. JJLiu112 (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4710387 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4710387 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Verifiability: Not ready: I'm really sorry...no paywalled sources either. WN:Paywall...I can't actually access Law360 without paying.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer: "Only published sources that someone else could reasonably be able to check can be used. It is acceptable to link to sites that require free registration, but never those that request payment to view content on the site."

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 4710387 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:03, 19 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]
  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Verifiability: Not ready: I'm really sorry...no paywalled sources either. WN:Paywall...I can't actually access Law360 without paying.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer: "Only published sources that someone else could reasonably be able to check can be used. It is acceptable to link to sites that require free registration, but never those that request payment to view content on the site."

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.

Review of revision 4711562 [Passed][edit]

Revision 4711562 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: You will forgive the tardiness in publication for what has been quite possibly one of the most in-depth, fleshed-out articles this website has produced in quite some months. Nevertheless, owed perhaps to suddenly tacking on the Law360 source, you need to remember the inverted pyramid: what happened NOW goes first, BEFORE goes later. Yes, even for a court case. Otherwise, smaller issues viz. making sure all claims can be proven, structure, formatting etc. Very good second article.

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 4711562 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: You will forgive the tardiness in publication for what has been quite possibly one of the most in-depth, fleshed-out articles this website has produced in quite some months. Nevertheless, owed perhaps to suddenly tacking on the Law360 source, you need to remember the inverted pyramid: what happened NOW goes first, BEFORE goes later. Yes, even for a court case. Otherwise, smaller issues viz. making sure all claims can be proven, structure, formatting etc. Very good second article.

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.

@JJLiu112: Was this stale when published? I do not think when a source (in this example Law360) makes a correction six days after initial publication improves freshness for Wikinews. Cheers, --SVTCobra 06:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I didn't realise that until I had finished reviewing. In this specific case I appeal to "how widely the event has been covered by the mainstream", and we've historically been liberal for what constitutes original reporting. --JJLiu112 (talk) 01:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typo[edit]

{{editprotected}} Canada, not ‘Canadan’. JJLiu112 (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done --SVTCobra 22:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_soldier_who_filmed_himself_sexually_abusing_colleague_has_appeal_dismissed&oldid=4722471"