Talk:EU commission proposal to protect Ukrainian refugees until March 2026

Pre-review

Status:    Not ready

Version evaluated: 4786299

• Copyright: Not evaluated
• Newsworthiness: Passed
• Verifiability: Passed
• NPOV: Passed
• Style: Not ready: See below

Notes for author(s):

Unfortunately, this is not a synthesis article. Everything can be verified from the European Commission article. The idea of synthesis is taking the (best) parts of 2 or more articles. As well, generally don't put a source if any all facts you need it to verify in your story are verified by other sources in our story already. Finally, you have a few phrases which are direct copies from the source mentioned above. I'm not certain if that would be enough to fail copyright though, but be careful.

Notes for reviewer:

See above regarding synthesis issues and possible copyright issues as well.

---

This is a pre-review only and is not part of the official review process. A pre-review is meant to help the article author or authors improve the article and increase the likelihood of getting published. This pre-review was not done by a reviewer and represents a recommendation that can be heeded or ignored.

Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the pre-review and apologies for my misunderstanding of how to write Wikinews articles.

I removed the EU's own articles from sources and made sure that all the claims in this article can be found in the two sources. Lejar (talk) 10:17, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, I think this is stale at this point. Also, there is no requirement that you can’t use the EU as a source (but it is preferable to avoid using a primary source if you can find the info elsewhere). However, now the June 13 date is unverified. @Lejar: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

You can use primary sources as long as you also have two news sources to support that focal event and the information used from the primary source is not mentioned in the news sources. Primary sources can be an excellent resource when used carefully i.e., by keeping neutrality in mind, conflicts of interest, attribution, etc.

For example, if I were writing this article, I would likely use the commission's website as a third source to explain the background of the directive, the next steps to be taken, maybe even its reported efficacy (being careful to attribute any assertions of efficacy and look for contradictory or supportive reports).

I agree with Me Da Wikipedian that we need a source that reports on the June 13 submission. Reading the article now, we don't know if it was actually submitted or pulled at the last minute. A brief search doesn't turn up anything. I think even a primary source can be used, while keeping the current news sources would suffice, per WN:Fresh:

An unpublished article is typically considered stale when it's five to seven days old. There are two exceptions to this: one for reporting on a story where new information about the event comes to light days later, and one for original reporting; we'll discuss these in more detail below.

@Heavy Water, is this a correct understanding of updating an unpublished news event that has further developed before being published? —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 16:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The regulations around using primary sources are really quite simple: They can be used, including as the two mutually independent focal event sources required by WN:CS, subject to the same precautions Michael mentioned above, which we use for any source. Michael.C.Wright: Yeah, I think your understanding is correct. Heavy Water (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2024 (UTC)