Talk:Dungog, Australia residents celebrate continued protection of local forest

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

Review of revision 1978852 [Not ready][edit]

Review of revision 1978946 [Not ready][edit]

Requested items have been scanned and emailed to scoop[edit]

Dungog Chronicle Article has been scanned and emailed to scoop, Scan of letter from Robyn Parker to George Souris has been emailed to Scoop. Not sure what to do beyond the email process 1000years (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Minor note[edit]

Not all {{source}} are filled in, still; a reviewer can do so manually but taking care of that would ease reviewer labour and make the review faster. Thanks. Gryllida 11:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1979674 [Not ready][edit]

I've added the OR tag on the sources section, and am moving the OR citations here:

  • Janelle O'Neill. "[ "DUNGOG RESIDENTS ENSURE CONTINUED PROTECTION OF LOCAL FOREST"]" — The Dungog Chronicle, August 14, 2012
  • Robyn Parker. "[ Letter to George Souris, Member for Upper Hunter, NSW]" —  July 13, 2013

I've also done some other tidying there, and will see if there's anything more I can do there as well. --Pi zero (talk) 01:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Web sites without dates, if used as sources, are listed with the date when they were accessed, followed by "(date of access)". If not used as sources, they can be listed in a separate External links section. --Pi zero (talk) 00:10, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1980444 [Not ready][edit]

  • If you were, yourself, involved in the campaign to protest the logging proposal, you should disclose that, at least here on the article talk page. WN:COI. --Pi zero (talk) 04:16, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Advice needed : how to proceed with this article?[edit]

Thank You: to all for your patient and helpful editing... I had heard that it was hard to publish on WikiNews, and it's so true, but I am pleased it is only hard because the reviewers are extremely rigorous!

My Involvement: I come from an academic writing background, and am interested in contributing some writing into the wiki community. My interests are in the conservation of the natural environment, which drew me to the issue reported in the article, as environment and community are subjects I am inspired to report on. However I am aware of presenting facts rather than writing a bias piece, as I would like to gain a reputation as an environmental reporter who could be read by anyone. In my local area I have friends who undertake forestry operations, and farm forestry, so I have a perspective from both sides. But the farm forestry here is about sustainable forestry with long-term views for the future of the forest, whereas if you look at the items raised by the Forest Products Association, (e.g. logging in current environmental logging buffer zones etc)the proposed logging increase does not seem to be about much more than immediate financial gain.

The article: Yes it is a complex piece to take on for a first article. I would like to publish it before the end of the week so it is still fresh. Should I perhaps remove anything controversial, simply report that the walk took place, and why the group said they were doing it, and leave the rest out? Then I could do a more in-depth piece about the background when I have more time to expand on it... but then it won't be current news so not so relevant... or could it become a wikipedia entry instead. I don't know, I'm new to all of this OBVIOUSLY.

Please advise. Thank You —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 1000years (talkcontribs) 23:52, 4 September 2013

Sorry if this comes out in somewhat jumbled order.
  • Wikipedia wouldn't take this, I don't think. It's too small scale for an encyclopedia article; at most, I suspect, the whole business might warrant a sentence, maybe two sentences (if they're short), in some larger article. I think you're right to want this to be a news article.
  • Time is a-wasting; we need to get this whipped into shape promptly, if we're going to. Original reporting (OR) is deemed to extend freshness somewhat, depending on the nature of the OR, but we can't (as you point out) rely on that indefinitely; if this were strictly a synthesis piece, it would be stale by now. I realize it's very awkward that I'm on almost exactly the opposite side of the planet form you, which slows down our interactions a lot; this also really motivates me to try to write detailed, hopefully clear comments. I'm really hoping I can say enough of the right things now for you to revise and resubmit, and have it pass its next review.
  • This doesn't need to be cut down, I think; cutting it down could undermine the newsworthiness of the piece, because the relevance of the focus (the guided walk) depends on its attachment to this larger controversy about logging. I can't write this stuff for you without disqualifying myself from review, which we really can't afford to have happen, but I'm doing my best to make suggestions that ought to work and hopefully are specific enough for you to act on. I'm guessing the lede should say that the walk took place and was celebrating getting this reassurance, and then say a bit very succinctly about the background that explains the significance of the reassurance. And then I suggested possibilities for where to go for there; see the review comments, above.
  • When you find yourself not knowing how to explain something briefly, perhaps because you know too much about it, often the problem is you shouldn't be trying to explain at all. Present just a few facts, presented simply so they can be readily understood, and without creating bias by failing to acknowledge a significant point of view.
  • I noted the timber industry's position was not being fairly represented. If that were the only problem with the Ainley paragraph (which it isn't; see below), it's possible the problem might be fixed by inserting the word "sustainable" before the word "logging". Seriously. If I'm factually wrong, obviously that wouldn't solve the problem. And by the time that and all other needed changes were made, I'd certainly have to read the whole through from the top to see if it feels balanced. But the addition of that one word really might make all the difference in the the world.
  • Unfortunately, that isn't the only problem with that paragraph. As I noted, I didn't find, within the indicated ten pages of transcript, that Ainley proposed, well, anything. Maybe I missed it, but I only found that he was presenting evidence of a problem; I didn't see him naming what to do about it. Perhaps that was elsewhere in the transcript? You'd have to let me know where to find it. Or modify what your article says to be something you can point me to so I can verify it. That's not a matter of neutrality, it's a matter of verification. It needs to be resolved somehow.
I'm really hoping this helps. --Pi zero (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1981060 [Passed][edit]