Talk:Colombian President announces peace talks with FARC rebels

I tried to find a direct link to the AFP article rather than the one in Google but there does not seem to be one. Philafrenzy (talk) 00:27, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1600961 [Not ready]

Revision 1600961 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:48, 28 August 2012 (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: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: This is a tricky story to cover due to dearth of overlap of information between its sources. One has to carefully sort out what is redundantly confirmed by mutually independent sources, what is known, what is claimed by whom. The focal news event of our article must be something verified by two mutually independent sources; we can of course include material that's in just one source, but if it's potentially controversial we need to attribute it; attributing claims rather than presenting them as fact is central to WN:NPOV. Here we do have two mutually independent sources, but note that neither source headline says what our headline currently does, that Colombia is to open talks with FARC in Norway — both source headlines attribute that claim, and, trickily for us, they don't attribute it to the same party, nor have their different sources presented them with quite the same information. So our headline oughtn't be presenting that as fact, at least not with these two sources. Then there's the lede, which should summarize the focal news event by succinctly answering the basic questions about that focal event; but here, the first paragraph seems to be split into two things, one from each source, rather than presenting a summary of an event. 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 1600961 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:48, 28 August 2012 (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: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: This is a tricky story to cover due to dearth of overlap of information between its sources. One has to carefully sort out what is redundantly confirmed by mutually independent sources, what is known, what is claimed by whom. The focal news event of our article must be something verified by two mutually independent sources; we can of course include material that's in just one source, but if it's potentially controversial we need to attribute it; attributing claims rather than presenting them as fact is central to WN:NPOV. Here we do have two mutually independent sources, but note that neither source headline says what our headline currently does, that Colombia is to open talks with FARC in Norway — both source headlines attribute that claim, and, trickily for us, they don't attribute it to the same party, nor have their different sources presented them with quite the same information. So our headline oughtn't be presenting that as fact, at least not with these two sources. Then there's the lede, which should summarize the focal news event by succinctly answering the basic questions about that focal event; but here, the first paragraph seems to be split into two things, one from each source, rather than presenting a summary of an event. 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 1601679 [Passed]

Revision 1601679 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks like it is active voice. Image is credited. Most important facts appear to be at the top with inverted pyramid style used correctly. First paragraph answers the 4W+H. I see no copyright issues. " FARC rebels who have been fighting the government since 1964" is really close to the BBC source but honestly not sure how else to word. "Feb 2012: Farc announces end of kidnapping for ransom" also looks close but again, unsure how to make different. I think possibility of over sourcing because reuters source information in article appears to be supported by BBC and AFP, which both are uniquely supported in that they have a little bit of information each but as one source going with not as concerned. Having finally looked at previous comments before hitting submit review per direction, I think all the points by pi zero have been addressed. 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 1601679 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks like it is active voice. Image is credited. Most important facts appear to be at the top with inverted pyramid style used correctly. First paragraph answers the 4W+H. I see no copyright issues. " FARC rebels who have been fighting the government since 1964" is really close to the BBC source but honestly not sure how else to word. "Feb 2012: Farc announces end of kidnapping for ransom" also looks close but again, unsure how to make different. I think possibility of over sourcing because reuters source information in article appears to be supported by BBC and AFP, which both are uniquely supported in that they have a little bit of information each but as one source going with not as concerned. Having finally looked at previous comments before hitting submit review per direction, I think all the points by pi zero have been addressed. 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.