This is a tricky story to cover. There are two mutually entangled deep factors here that need address; I made two edits to the lede that seemed to me straightforwardly needed.
The focal event is the revelation on Thursday. The actor in this event is not the prince, but PBS. The first sentence of the lede was overtly in passive voice, which underlines this point about the actor: passive voice is a grammatical construct whose function is to allow omission of the actor, which is why it often becomes a problem in news writing; not only is active voice more energetic, but omitting the actor is likely shortchanging the reader on who (one of the five Ws). In this case the actor was deferred to the last sentence of the lede, avoiding excessive verbiage before getting to the prince in the first sentence but making the means of revelation into a mystery through the first two sentences. I fixed that, leaving some of the third sentence deferred but moving up the actor itself; and also fixed the attendant problem that, in realizing the prince didn't do anything on Thursday, one sees the when of the prince's statement was missing.
We don't cover stories that amount to "somebody else published an exclusive story". Occasionally we do cover a story that centers on an exclusive by another news org, but there has to be something more to it. Indeed, the Reuters source does provide something more, in the form of a remark by the fiancee; but that aspect of what the fiancee said is not reproduced here — the mention of the fiancee here is, afaics, stuff that was said some time ago, not response to Thursday's revelation.
We seek to empower the reader with objective information, and in this case a central question is, what does this acknowledgement by the prince mean? This may be reasonably considered essential, because it goes to what is the significance? It's not at all obvious what the significance of the prince's statement is (and yes, it's the significance of the prince's statement that drives this, rather than the significance of the fact that PBS decided to reveal it in a preview). One might suppose that the significance is that, gosh, even though the prince hasn't actually owned up to ordering the guy murdered, they've taken a step in that direction by admitting to some responsibility. We do not, of course, get to opine on such things ourselves, but we should arm the reader with information with which to consider the question, and one likely form of such information is remarks we can report from people in the story. And we have such a thing: the fiancee said something specifically about what it means, in response to it, reported in the Reuters source.
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 is a tricky story to cover. There are two mutually entangled deep factors here that need address; I made two edits to the lede that seemed to me straightforwardly needed.
The focal event is the revelation on Thursday. The actor in this event is not the prince, but PBS. The first sentence of the lede was overtly in passive voice, which underlines this point about the actor: passive voice is a grammatical construct whose function is to allow omission of the actor, which is why it often becomes a problem in news writing; not only is active voice more energetic, but omitting the actor is likely shortchanging the reader on who (one of the five Ws). In this case the actor was deferred to the last sentence of the lede, avoiding excessive verbiage before getting to the prince in the first sentence but making the means of revelation into a mystery through the first two sentences. I fixed that, leaving some of the third sentence deferred but moving up the actor itself; and also fixed the attendant problem that, in realizing the prince didn't do anything on Thursday, one sees the when of the prince's statement was missing.
We don't cover stories that amount to "somebody else published an exclusive story". Occasionally we do cover a story that centers on an exclusive by another news org, but there has to be something more to it. Indeed, the Reuters source does provide something more, in the form of a remark by the fiancee; but that aspect of what the fiancee said is not reproduced here — the mention of the fiancee here is, afaics, stuff that was said some time ago, not response to Thursday's revelation.
We seek to empower the reader with objective information, and in this case a central question is, what does this acknowledgement by the prince mean? This may be reasonably considered essential, because it goes to what is the significance? It's not at all obvious what the significance of the prince's statement is (and yes, it's the significance of the prince's statement that drives this, rather than the significance of the fact that PBS decided to reveal it in a preview). One might suppose that the significance is that, gosh, even though the prince hasn't actually owned up to ordering the guy murdered, they've taken a step in that direction by admitting to some responsibility. We do not, of course, get to opine on such things ourselves, but we should arm the reader with information with which to consider the question, and one likely form of such information is remarks we can report from people in the story. And we have such a thing: the fiancee said something specifically about what it means, in response to it, reported in the Reuters source.
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.
Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I was doing my usual proofreading for minor stuff that could go either way, and I noticed that I can't tell from this text whether Hatice Cengiz is a man or a woman. The fact that the first face I see is male, even though I can read that it's Khashoggi's after the fact, suggests to my mind that they're two men. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:16, 28 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
@SVTCobra: While we're on the subject of headlines, the current headline gives no clue who either of those people are, except that one one of them has apparently been murdered. --Pi zero (talk) 02:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
True. After a couple of sloppy abortions, I have renamed. It feels too international to put any single country in the title, though. --SVTCobra02:38, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
@SVTCobra: Two things. Seems to me headlinese would drop the "her" from current headline. And, while I agree the internationality is quite challenging, seems to me it really wants something geographical to anchor it. --Pi zero (talk) 02:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I used UN HQ as the geo-locator for better-or-worse. I think we have ample precedent for international events not needing further location data in titles. --SVTCobra03:00, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I didn't drop the 'her' in light of the gender concerns above, but if you review again, you can do so without any objection from me. --SVTCobra03:40, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I like the UN as anchor. We aren't after all obligated to answer the five Ws and an H in the headline, but to say what's important and unique, and provide (without misleading) the sizzle that sells the steak. And sure enough, even if the names are meaningless and you've never heard of the case, someone seeking justice for their journalist fiancee's murder may sound moderately ordinary, but someone doing so before the UN General Assembly is news. --Pi zero (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
"Fiance of murdered Saudi journalist demands justice at UN General Assembly." Cengiz is not independently famous, so we don't need her name in the headline. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
I just want to point out the distinction between fiancée and fiancé. Otherwise, I'm happy with the new title. Wish "Khashoggi" could still be in there, but I don't want to make the headline any longer than it is. Cheers, --SVTCobra16:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
Although the dismemberment meme is now solidly attached to the Khashoggi story, I couldn't tell from these sources (nor anything else I found on a quick surreptitious search) where that meme came from, and in particular whether it was in the UN report. Also wasn't sure exactly what the report said about the prospects of murder since most that's said about the report focuses on who is responsible.
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.
Although the dismemberment meme is now solidly attached to the Khashoggi story, I couldn't tell from these sources (nor anything else I found on a quick surreptitious search) where that meme came from, and in particular whether it was in the UN report. Also wasn't sure exactly what the report said about the prospects of murder since most that's said about the report focuses on who is responsible.
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.
This Summary of the report from the OHCHR has a link to the actual hundred page report in Word format. Dismemberment was mentioned several times (but not in the summary) and is based on what both Turkish and Saudi investigators found, including at least one confession. If even the Saudis are saying he was chopped up, I tend to believe it. --SVTCobra23:44, 29 September 2019 (UTC)Reply
