Talk:Curaçao wins maiden Caribbean Cup

For me, this underlines that a review is not a better way to improve quality. The Wikipedia way / freedom is better. I'll state it out:

• Sunday is today, because the article states 25 June. So 'today' should be stated.
• Maiden is suggestive language, so the original title was better
• The link to the Caribbean Cup 2017 was removed but that had more to do with the subject than the general football infobox
• Bis, that link contained links to facts in English language, so calling help from a Dutch speaking person is hardly / not necessary
• The link to the Curaçao football team on Wikipedia was removed, but is more helpful to readers than the link to the isle/country of Curaçao
• Quality is working together on an article. Now I am not allowed to do (minor) corrections any more.

That's my review of the quite inflexible way English Wikinews functions. I very much believe this system of formal reviews costs volunteers and therefore harms quality and quantity. Really both. I didn't say to not check articles anymore, though. Just let it free, and still keep on doing it. Ymnes (talk) 19:42, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

• Headlines should say something unique. Let's say, they win the cup next time as well. Are you going to use the same title again?
• About the date, we use date when the article was published. Not only us, but every news source does that. For example, the sources you have cited says June 26, not June 25. It should mentioned in the article lede when the event took place.
• I am still reviewing the article, so there will be improvements. Some things would not look perfect in the beginning.
• Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. It can go in the "Sister projects" section, but it can not be used as a source. Alternatively, the sources which Wikipedia uses can be used, provided they are reliable, and not paywalled.
• For verifiability of the story, reviewer needs to access all of the sources, which happens to be in Dutch language. There comes the problem of verification.
• In general, we link the country rather than the football team article.
• And if you had to do minor corrections, you should do that before submitting article for review. Once it is under review, you should inform the reviewer what should be done via talk page. You can read the template, right?
• We use infobox for every article, now.
  acagastya 19:57, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

You act as if you're very confident of your statements, but why am I not convinced at all? Why are so few articles written overhere, and why isn't the quality really better? Please think, and try to find out why my message can be more true than you make of it. Ymnes (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project, and we are volunteers here. I can ask the same question why there is nothing on XYZ project. Pointing fingers would lead us nowhere.
acagastya 20:22, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ymnes: I think acagastya is trying to be polite. I like to be honest. Acagastya is confident in those statements because acagastya knows what xe is talking about, having studied en.wn policies, guidelines, and best practices for several years. Note, your judgement on "quality" evidently fails to take into account the difference between unvetted claims and vetted ones. Consider: What is the difference between one person writing an article and spreading it around the world, versus the same person writing the same article but then, rather than spreading it around the world, turning it over for en.wn review to another user who checks it carefully, decides that absolutely nothing needs to be changed, and publishes it thus spreading it around the world? The fundamental difference isn't about which way the article gets out faster; that's just a detail. In the first case, what is spread around the world is claims by one person; in the second case, what gets spread around the world is a news article that was meticulously reviewed by a community-authorized reviewer independent of the article authorship. The value added by the review is profound, even though (we are supposing) not a single character of the article was changed. --Pi zero (talk) 21:13, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Actually, I lost my cool. It was about midnight, here, when this article was submitted for review. Things would have been different if they would have joined IRC, and we could have discussed about the issues rather than debating. They should not have jumped to the conclusions. For my "very confident statements", for this article, I can bet no matter how many football articles you have written; I have written more. (Ah, Nicola Yoon's Everything, Everything. I need to finish that book). Well, the review comments to improve for the next time.
acagastya 21:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Review comments

There were several issues, and most of them could have been solved easily if I could have convinced the user to join IRC and help me to help them. Newcomers can learn from the policies, yes. But just like how you can not learn to swim just be reading a book, you can't learn how to write an article just by reading the policies. They need to write. I appreciate that User:Ymnes wrote the article. It was okay as a new comer. Two years ago, when I joined the project, I had no clue what to do.

There were problems regarding the style of the article. I wanted to suggest my first published article F.C. Barcelona wins La Liga 2014-2015. I was not going to disqualify myself if the author would have joined IRC.

1. To link to Wikipedia articles, use {{w}} template.
2. The date format that we use is, for example, June 28, 2017.
3. The WN:headlines should tell something unique. There was nothing wrong with the original title, but what was the special thing about this story? When something happens for the first time, they sure are excited to know about it.
4. The lede should answer the 5Ws and Hs. Like in this case, the event happened on Sunday (When?). Team A defeated Team B by 2–1. (How?). They defeated Jamaica (Whom?) A news article follows an inverted pyramid structure. The core things should be said in the upper portion of the article body. Things that are relevant, but carries meaning of lower significance will go in the lower part of the article body.
5. The date on the article is when it was published not when the news broke.
6. I think the author used Wikipedia as a source. Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. You are free to use the sources Wikipedia cites, but do not cite Wikipedia.
7. Regarding the sources, a reviewer should be able to verify the information from all of the the listed sources. If there was a source that was used to gather information, one must cite it as well.
8. Machine translations often results in poor translations and convey a very wrong meaning. Ask me for an example, I am ready to share with you.
9. Using non-English sources could be tricky. If it was covered in other news sources, you could use them. But this story! Seriously, no mainstream media chose to write about it. I won't be surprised. I had never heard of this country before. I was surprised to learn that their FIFA ranking is 70. India was on 100 when I last saw the list. So, coming to the point, if there is no alternative, and one has to use foreign language source, either the reviewer should know that language, which in this case, no reviewer knows Dutch language on this project. Or, one who knows that language can translate the sources in exact verbatim and reviewer can use that. Which is why I asked the author to join IRC channel.
10. The article must contain at least three medium-sized paragraphs. Do not count single lined paragraphs. This article was just a bit above the minimal length.
11. Please fix all the typos, and copyediting related stuff before submitting for review. It is not a problem if you submit the article for review and then add something. But if you keep on doing it, the reviewer won't know when to review. But once {{under review}} tag is placed on the article, use the talk page to tell what the problem is. Before publishing, the reviewer has to read the talk page, is it exists.
12. I tried to find sources which could verify that the author had added, but there were two things which I could not. I am sorry.
13. I did not mean to hijack the article, but since the author did not agree to help me, I had no other option than to improve the article and thus, disqualifying myself as the reviewer.
    acagastya 22:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and I removed the image because it was breaking the flow of writing. I need clear space to write, and I would add the image later. But if you don't like it, do not revert the edits, it can cause edit conflicts.
acagastya 22:11, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4326575 [Passed]

Revision 4326575 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4326575 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.