Talk:England: Baby born with heart outside body operated on; surviving, three weeks after birth

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

Review of revision 4370102 [Not ready][edit]

When the announcement was made[edit]

I see your point, and struggled a bit with that when I came to write it up. Did you watch the video on the BBC source? I have problems with sound, so was using the subtitles; is there anything pinning down an event in the audio, which includes the doctor speaking? Other than that, I'll search and see if I can find anything. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:50, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Yngvadottir: I did watch it, yes, and the video on the Guardian source. The BBC captions have all the spoken words plus more words that had no sound.

One approach would be to just email the hospital inquiring about the date of the third surgery; but because it's so minor that it wouldn't really count as "OR" for purposes of extending freshness, there probably isn't time. It seems plausible the hospital could have an email around somewhere for press inquiries; if one could get an answer back fast enough, one could leave a note on the article talk page explaining what you did and, for good measure, forward the emails involved to "scoop at wikinewsie dot org". This probably wouldn't be worth an {{original}} source tag in the article's Sources section, if it's just the date confirmation, which is also why it wouldn't extend freshness. --Pi zero (talk) 05:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I can't do any e-mailing, so I attempted to recify by adding a source. (By the way, I got an error message when I saved about an infinite loop caused by a call of Template:Infobox.) Yngvadottir (talk) 17:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yngvadottir: I've seen that claim of circularity, I think, though I've not seen it consistently and suspect it might be spurious. Certainly the Foundation's foolhardy attitude toward wiki markup tries my patience. Thanks for mentioning it, though; it's well to be aware of what mischief they're up to. --Pi zero (talk) 18:13, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4370218 [Passed][edit]

Thank you! I spotted a syntax problem that had crept in with a revision and have edited acordingly. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi zero: Guardians of the Galaxy, Pirates of the Caribbean, Enchanted and Wreck-it Ralph are Disney movies. Unfortunately, WIR is the only one which didn’t “break the internet” (I hope you got the pun). Best to mention year and type of movie from the next time before publishing. Besides, I am a Disney fan and I would want these details. (talk) 14:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not Pi zero, but I wrote the article. I don't recall seeing the film categorised in the sources, but I admit it could have crept past me. I'm old enough to think of Disney as primarily an animation studio, and in any case I disagree that readers will want to know, but no harm, no foul :-) I'm glad you didn't add the year, and regard that as even more non-news, but ... still very much a dunce at this kind of writing. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh believe me, you never know when you might need that “tiny” bit of information. And for movies, it is better to add the year— it may seem to be not news, but year and/or director can avoid any sort of ambiguity; just like how John Lassater would remind me of Cars trilogy. You would know what I am trying to convey if you write more articles. Archives are very important for any news organisation. Oh by the way, Disney is so vast that presuming it makes only animated movies is totally incorrect. (talk) 01:33, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]