Talk:Egyptian military issues ultimatum to Morsi

Combination

How about moving the information from the old article into this one as background information? Surfer43 (talk) 19:03, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

That's an option you can do. Information about the protests would help better explain why the Egyptian military is intervening in this. Just make sure that whatever information you have about the protest is cited in the "Sources" section. Right now it looks like it's under review, so after it's either passed or marked not ready, you can add some information, just remember that you have 24 hours before adding substantially to an article is not allowed. —Mikemoral♪♫ 19:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm still reviewing but have taken it out from "under" review so it can be updated. When/if I see update happening, I'll suspend review while update happens, and then I'll do my damnedest to recommence review fairly promptly thereafter (I'll especially try to recommence, if that happens, today my time rather than having it drag on overnight my time). --Pi zero (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1939981 [Passed]

Revision 1939981 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: A big story like this can be difficult to cover, a bit of a mad scramble with reporter and reviewer struggling to make things come out in a timely fashion. As you see. Ideally, of course, one would like a broad range of perspectives from the sources than CBS News and NBC news. Like, say, Al Jazeera English as a second source for a story like this would be cool. 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 1939981 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: A big story like this can be difficult to cover, a bit of a mad scramble with reporter and reviewer struggling to make things come out in a timely fashion. As you see. Ideally, of course, one would like a broad range of perspectives from the sources than CBS News and NBC news. Like, say, Al Jazeera English as a second source for a story like this would be cool. 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.

Yes, there were more sources, but I didn't get around to it. Surfer43 (talk) 20:26, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments on submitted merge

A merge was submitted of material from the earlier unpublished article. Essentially, the earlier article was appended to this one. In terms of inverted pyramid style, this worked remarkably well. I moved the variant page to WN:Sandbox to work on it; the history of my edits during review is there (very little of what I did was to smooth the transition from published material to added material). My assessment was, however, that it contained various facts that clearly needed attribution/qualification; I noted the number of protestors and the total number of injured/dead. The number of sources made things quite difficult. It would be really helpful if, when drawing on a large number of sources, some sort of guidance were provided to help a reviewer know which sources particular information was drawn from; granted, this is a a big burden on the reporter — but it would be appreciated. The most commonly used technique is to put html comments in the article text, <!-- like this -->, naming the sources; when doing so, leave a note about it on the talk page, so the reviewer knows to look for the html comments. Another technique sometimes used is notes on the talk page, naming for each paragraph which sources it draws on (or some variant on that approach). --Pi zero (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The number of deaths and injuries was the same among the newer sources. I'll try to add html comments in the sandbox. Surfer43 (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

The number of deaths and injuries are numbers provided by a specific party. It matters who provided information like that, and (by now) even when they provided it. The attribution for those numbers should be most of the sources (actually, it should be in all the sources that quote the numbers, but not all news sources are equally careful). --Pi zero (talk) 12:40, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I added the comments. Health Ministry spokesman Yehya Moussa was the one with the death/injury numbers. I added that also. Surfer43 (talk) 13:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm finding who said the figures on the number of people at the protests. Surfer43 (talk) 13:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it is probably ready. I changed the definite "nearly 500,000" to "hundreds of thousands", and in the following sentence said "Some estimate the turnout was tens of thousands, some hundreds of thousands, and a military source estimated the number at almost fourteen million." Surfer43 (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I submitted to pending changes. Surfer43 (talk) 14:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Where Morsi's comments where from

"Morsi has said that the protests are an undemocratic attack on his electoral legitimacy. He claims clauses on religious authority in the new Egyptian constitution were not his choice." was from Reuters. Original text: "Interviewed by a British newspaper, Mursi voiced his resolve to ride out what he sees as an undemocratic attack on his electoral legitimacy. He offered to revise the Islamist-inspired constitution, saying clauses on religious authority, which fuelled liberal resentment, were not his choice." Later the article says "In his interview with Britain's Guardian newspaper, ...". I am assuming this was from the interview. Surfer43 (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

And I have no idea when the interview happened, or if it was even said around this time. I don't think it was. Surfer43 (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments on second merge submission

The big merge is now published.

There were a number of problems with text much too close to the sources, notwithstanding some good larger-scale blending of source materials. At the smaller scale, avoid imitating the sentence/phrase structure of sources, and distinctive turns of phrase and word choices (the verb monopolize comes to mind, form the text here). Mixing materials from distance parts of sources, or even from different sources, in a single sentence or clause is good at opportunity. When all that is done, there's a rule of thumb that one shouldn't have more than three consecutive words identical to a source, with obvious exceptions like titles. One should never copy a source phrase and then try to "scuff it up" by changing a few words here and there. --Pi zero (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2013 (UTC)