Talk:Five hundred migrants alleged killed in deliberate sinking in Mediterranean

Timeline

Key to newsworthiness here, probably, is the timeline, which is not currently made clear in the article. The only when now mentioned in the lede is when the ship sank, which is very old and makes the article sound {{stale}}. The claim that it was sunk deliberately seems to be much more recent. I'm unsure (having not yet studied the sources) what other dates might be important to the timeline. --Pi zero (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Summary:

• 'deliberate' sinking: Last Wed (10th), near Malta
• Survivors picked up: Last Thur (11th)
• capsize/second sinking: Sunday (14th), near Libya
• IOM statement, alleging possible 'mass murder': Yesterday (15th)

HTH. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments elsewhere

User talk:Yusuf Alsheikh#Maltese ship carrying 500 immigrants sunk in Mediterranean Sea (Noting, since possibly of interest to any reviewer.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2889070 [Not ready]

Revision 2889070 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: I agree with Brian McNeil's remarks on choice of focus: As currently presented, the article focuses on the sinking of the boat, which occurred nearly a week ago. The suggestion it may have been deliberate, though mentioned in the lede, is not dated in the lede, so the reader finishes the lede not knowing why the article should be considered fresh. If I'm understanding rightly, the survivors didn't make a public statement, so the suggestion of deliberate sinking actually comes to us through the IOM; this ought to be made clear in the lede. Moreover, the announcement by the IOM is big enough that it really seems like the main current story, given how much more recent it is than the sinking itself. The current headline has two difficulties: it isn't clear from the sources that the boat was Maltese (as Brian McNeil noted), and we oughtn't assert as fact that the boat was sunk (though it seems fair to say it sank). Deciding just which adjustments to make and how to make them, and implementing them, seems to me outside reviewer's purview. Questions about the above? Ask. 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.

Revision 2889070 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: I agree with Brian McNeil's remarks on choice of focus: As currently presented, the article focuses on the sinking of the boat, which occurred nearly a week ago. The suggestion it may have been deliberate, though mentioned in the lede, is not dated in the lede, so the reader finishes the lede not knowing why the article should be considered fresh. If I'm understanding rightly, the survivors didn't make a public statement, so the suggestion of deliberate sinking actually comes to us through the IOM; this ought to be made clear in the lede. Moreover, the announcement by the IOM is big enough that it really seems like the main current story, given how much more recent it is than the sinking itself. The current headline has two difficulties: it isn't clear from the sources that the boat was Maltese (as Brian McNeil noted), and we oughtn't assert as fact that the boat was sunk (though it seems fair to say it sank). Deciding just which adjustments to make and how to make them, and implementing them, seems to me outside reviewer's purview. Questions about the above? Ask. 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.

Review of revision 2891575 [Passed]

Revision 2891575 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 2891575 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.