Talk:Court participates in traffic ticket amnesty program
Add topicArticle and photo first appeared in the March 26, 2009, Detroit Legal News. Freelance writer retained second and later rights. Source was press release and speakers at March 25, 2009, press conference at 36th District Court in Detroit. Johnharry (talk) 01:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the information! As Original reporting notes, these are on the short side, but I think sufficient. A slight problem is that you state that the article has been previously published elsewhere - you say that the writer retained second rights - but not whether you are the writer, or have his permission. Please see your talk page, where I wrote in some more details. And of course, many thanks for your contribution! I assume the article is yours, and it'd be okay to release it, but we need to be sure. Sean Heron (talk) 12:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Review
[edit]Please don't take this as a "failed" review : I merely want to point out which points I've checked, and that some extra info is necessary for the last points to be "cleared".
 |
Revision 804879 of this article has been reviewed by Sean Heron (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Info from author missing - otherwise ready to go! Sean Heron (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 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 804879 of this article has been reviewed by Sean Heron (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Info from author missing - otherwise ready to go! Sean Heron (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 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. |
Even if the Info is not the newest, I still think this is newsworthy as local news. Verifiability is as good as any other original reporting article, as far as I can see.
With requested info:
 |
Revision 804879 of this article has been reviewed by Sean Heron (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: There we are :). Sean Heron (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 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 804879 of this article has been reviewed by Sean Heron (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 13:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: There we are :). Sean Heron (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 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'd like to note: I have no confirmation beyond the statement below that the person submitting is the copyright holder. My judgement though, is that the likelihood of a copyright violation is extremely low - given that I wouldn't even be aware of prior publishing if same person hadn't pointed it out. Those are the reasons I'm "pass"ing on copyright.Sean Heron (talk) 15:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Authorship
[edit]Just to make it clear, I (John Minnis) wrote the article for the Detroit Legal News. As a freelance writer, I retain rights to republish my stories and photos as I wish. More info on me and copies of my stories can be found at http://www.linkedin.com/in/johnhminnis Johnharry (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)