Talk:Exxonmobil burns off excess fuel in Jurong Island, Singapore

Newsworthiness

I am new here, but I am not sure it is a good idea to discourage this story. WN seems to be about local citizen journalism, as well as stories of international interest. I like the Buffalo, NY stories, for example. The contributor has sound sources, and the refinery wants to use local media to communicate to Singapore residents about the alarming flare. I think we should assist a local Wikinewsie to be part of that media. --InfantGorilla 11:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

FellowWikiNews (talk · contribs) has just cleaned this up and published it. Perhaps I was misunderstood. I do not think it is publishable in its current form, as it seems to contain anonymous original reporting. Several facts are not in the cited sources, so perhaps should be backed up by reporter's notes

1. flaring continued into the third day (should an eye witness be named?)
2. quotes from press officers (who did they speak to, when?)
3. SVTCobra's concern about the date and significance of the video has not been addressed—edit summary: "the video is days old (even so, what does it show?); the gallery has great pictures. This has to have been picked up by a source outside STOMP before it can be published here."

The latest web press release from the refinery was on the second day (Nov 22), so I am assuming that the anon wikinewsie phoned the refinery for quotes (or got them from local radio or chinese language sources) and also heard from a first handwitness that the flaring continued on Nov 23. It was this piece of extra reporting that seemed to make it "wikinewsworthy" to me, so I am disappointed the original contributor did not come back to explain these issues. Am I being too critical? --InfantGorilla 21:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)