Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Current headline,
Egypt is opening Rafah border crossing sporadically for the transfer of injured and aid but is reluctant to advance a cease fire between Israel and the Gaza Strip
is way too long; somebody (reporter, reviewer, anyone) is going to have to work out a way to make it a lot shorter; should be less than half current length. --Pi zero (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)Reply
First pass, did simple stuff, no meaning change. Now
Egypt opening Rafah border crossing sporadically for Gaza injured and aid; reluctant to advance a cease fire
This needs a succinct lede, probably a single sentence written separately from what's here. Most of what's now the first paragraph is detail, of the sort that does not belong in the lede; and the overall picture, which is all that belongs in the lede, is now tangled up in those details. The bottom line, apparently, is that the border has been opened and closed several times in a few days; if you pretty much say that in a single sentence, it should make a crisp, clean lede. (This is too much for me to do, if I'm to remain independent for review.)
Are there updates to this, that could be added? Bringing it up to date would be good, although atm it hasn't actually lost freshness (today is Monday, most recent events described are from Saturday.)
There's a neutrality problem here. It talks about motives, and assesses performance. Don't ascribe motives. For example, one might report on what was said to the Egyptian president in the time leading up to a decision, but one mustn't claim that the one caused the other; let the reader form their own opinion on that. Talking about "attitude" is a sign of trouble, too.
The headline is still awfully long. I suggest leaving off the part about being "reluctant"; some of that might be covered —neutrally— in the article, but doesn't need to be in the headline, nor probably in the lede either (it doesn't appear to be in the first paragraph now).
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.
This needs a succinct lede, probably a single sentence written separately from what's here. Most of what's now the first paragraph is detail, of the sort that does not belong in the lede; and the overall picture, which is all that belongs in the lede, is now tangled up in those details. The bottom line, apparently, is that the border has been opened and closed several times in a few days; if you pretty much say that in a single sentence, it should make a crisp, clean lede. (This is too much for me to do, if I'm to remain independent for review.)
Are there updates to this, that could be added? Bringing it up to date would be good, although atm it hasn't actually lost freshness (today is Monday, most recent events described are from Saturday.)
There's a neutrality problem here. It talks about motives, and assesses performance. Don't ascribe motives. For example, one might report on what was said to the Egyptian president in the time leading up to a decision, but one mustn't claim that the one caused the other; let the reader form their own opinion on that. Talking about "attitude" is a sign of trouble, too.
The headline is still awfully long. I suggest leaving off the part about being "reluctant"; some of that might be covered —neutrally— in the article, but doesn't need to be in the headline, nor probably in the lede either (it doesn't appear to be in the first paragraph now).
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.
After deleting a lot of non-neutral material, I stopped to consider carefully the extent to which the article had retained its identity, and I had retained my independence. The removals would have been required, whether done by the reviewer or the reporter. Although the reporter might have added some neutral perspective to replace the removed materials, that seems an optional embellishment. The quote does sit a bit oddly without surrounding context, but it had no neutral context to start with, and as a miscellaneous background item it doesn't do too badly.
I didn't find anything in the sources reporting that al-Sisi had only allowed the opening under a lot of pressure (did I miss something in the sources?).
It's possible to write quite extensive neutral coverage of a story, even of a story one has strong opinions about, by sticking to objective facts of what was done and who said what. It just takes a bit of practice. The moment the first paragraph hit the word "probably", that was a warning sign of non-neutrality (as we practice neutrality on Wikinews).
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.
After deleting a lot of non-neutral material, I stopped to consider carefully the extent to which the article had retained its identity, and I had retained my independence. The removals would have been required, whether done by the reviewer or the reporter. Although the reporter might have added some neutral perspective to replace the removed materials, that seems an optional embellishment. The quote does sit a bit oddly without surrounding context, but it had no neutral context to start with, and as a miscellaneous background item it doesn't do too badly.
I didn't find anything in the sources reporting that al-Sisi had only allowed the opening under a lot of pressure (did I miss something in the sources?).
It's possible to write quite extensive neutral coverage of a story, even of a story one has strong opinions about, by sticking to objective facts of what was done and who said what. It just takes a bit of practice. The moment the first paragraph hit the word "probably", that was a warning sign of non-neutrality (as we practice neutrality on Wikinews).
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.
