Talk:Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting suspect appears in court

Review of revision 4277305 [Not ready]

Revision 4277305 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: While written reasonably neutrally, this is reaching the barrier of newsworthiness. Upon reviewing the content, the following are the remarks which prevent it from publishing. Unclear writing -- in the second paragraph, who did Santiago present the ID to? Why does it speak of the arrest first, and then of his shooting -- didn't he do the shooting first? Unclear writing -- what is FAA? Please provide its full name and context on first mention. I'm failing to see the mention of the bathroom anywhere in the sources. A lot of missing information which is perhaps essential: Sources include an airport map with remarks on the location of the shooting. Including that information and perhaps an airport map into the article would be desirable. The airport re-opened on Saturday, but this is not included into the article. Were this to be published now, readers would be mislead into thinking the airport is still closed. The time of day the attack happened is mentioned in the sources, but not in the article. The sources say why the attacker stopped, and where he went next and how and where he was arrested after running out of bullets, according to witness Mark Lea, (which contradicts the story by Schicher where he says he was stopped by police before he could reload his gun). This needs to be searched across multiple articles, analyzed, and included into the article. The sources state which gun was used for the shooting, but this article does not. The sources state that the guy was sent to hospital, and why (mental health check - with extra context (the guy went to FBI office and was crazy, and the guy also complained he heard voices on the day of the attack)), but the article does not. Please look into the above issues before re-submitting. Thank you. 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 4277305 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: While written reasonably neutrally, this is reaching the barrier of newsworthiness. Upon reviewing the content, the following are the remarks which prevent it from publishing. Unclear writing -- in the second paragraph, who did Santiago present the ID to? Why does it speak of the arrest first, and then of his shooting -- didn't he do the shooting first? Unclear writing -- what is FAA? Please provide its full name and context on first mention. I'm failing to see the mention of the bathroom anywhere in the sources. A lot of missing information which is perhaps essential: Sources include an airport map with remarks on the location of the shooting. Including that information and perhaps an airport map into the article would be desirable. The airport re-opened on Saturday, but this is not included into the article. Were this to be published now, readers would be mislead into thinking the airport is still closed. The time of day the attack happened is mentioned in the sources, but not in the article. The sources say why the attacker stopped, and where he went next and how and where he was arrested after running out of bullets, according to witness Mark Lea, (which contradicts the story by Schicher where he says he was stopped by police before he could reload his gun). This needs to be searched across multiple articles, analyzed, and included into the article. The sources state which gun was used for the shooting, but this article does not. The sources state that the guy was sent to hospital, and why (mental health check - with extra context (the guy went to FBI office and was crazy, and the guy also complained he heard voices on the day of the attack)), but the article does not. Please look into the above issues before re-submitting. Thank you. 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.

Note: I reviewed by reading the first two English-language sources. If some of the information I had failed to find is in the Spanish sources, please provide the relevant paragraphs (you may or may not translate them; if you don't, I would attempt machine translation). --Svetlana Tkachenko / Gryllida 23:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Gryllida, thanks for the review, evidently the Spanish sources are the ones that answer most of those questions, besides the inclusion of certain data that the sources in English do not indicate or that are omitted. Generally the reviewers who are not able to understand Spanish, can not extract that information. Regarding the FAA, the link to Wikipedia indicates the meaning of the acronyms. I would correct those problems, but I doubt that it can happen again given the time that happened without being reviewed and the lost potential of periodistic interest. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 00:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I have tried to address most of the concerns, however, information indicating for example that the individual recharged the gun in the airport bathroom or the exclusive use of the gun for the shooting is only indicated in the Spanish sources. I would look for sources in English to clarify these points, but it requires quite a bit of time by means of the automatic translation to search for which phrase indicates that, besides, I do not want to waste time looking for that in the end probably the article is reproved by the loss of periodistic interest. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 01:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC) PD: Sorry if my English is not good.

Review of revision 4277380 [Not ready]

Revision 4277380 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:42, 9 January 2017 (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 reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: 1. We must write in active voice in the headline and in the leading paragraph. 2. The leading paragraph needs to specify who and why carried out the attack. 3. The location of the shooting within the airport is not specified. In the previous review I had requested it to be included. 4. The "would have been arrested unharmed." part needs to be written "was arrested unharmed", otherwise it reads out as a conditional. Please fix the issues above and re-submit. Apart from the passive voice reword, they are outside of reviewer scope to fix. 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 4277380 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:42, 9 January 2017 (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 reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: 1. We must write in active voice in the headline and in the leading paragraph. 2. The leading paragraph needs to specify who and why carried out the attack. 3. The location of the shooting within the airport is not specified. In the previous review I had requested it to be included. 4. The "would have been arrested unharmed." part needs to be written "was arrested unharmed", otherwise it reads out as a conditional. Please fix the issues above and re-submit. Apart from the passive voice reword, they are outside of reviewer scope to fix. 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.

I have tried to apply the active voice in as many sentences as I found and they were not applying that rule. I have added the information requested and hope that the article can now be reviewed. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 04:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that if nobody is going to publish or reject the article, it would be better to erase it, I have already assumed that too many days have passed since this event and the periodic interest is already quite weak. Additionally I no longer intend to continue improving the article in case it is rejected. I also thank Gryllida for having given the time to enlarge the article, put the images and the map. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 19:20, 10 January 2017 (UTC) PD: Sorry if my English is not good.

Gryllida has refocused the article on a new event, which resets the clock: fresnhess is now measured from the new focus, which happened on Monday. By doing that, Gryllida has disqualified herself from reviewing the article, but there are others of us here who might review it. I've been having trouble getting to much review for the past few days, but I still have hope that I'll get to it before I sleep next (though that could be either before or after midnight UTC, so for Wikinews purposes it could be either Tuesday or Wednesday). --Pi zero (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I'll wait until someone checks it out. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 20:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Interlangs

The interlangs on this are all incorrect. All three are focussed on the earlier event (the shooting), not this event (the court appearance). BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

That was happening at Wikidata; it got linked there before the refocus. --Pi zero (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4278087 [Not ready]

Revision 4278087 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: On my preliminary check for likely copyvio, I'm turning up a bunch of verbatim passages from source. The ones I've noticed (there are a lot of sources, which makes it difficult to check everything) are mostly shortish passages, as few as five words, that are a bit distinctive... and then may also be indicates of a longer passage that's mostly the same except for a word changed here and there. That sort of thing is, I'm aware, quite difficult to get out of an article once it happens, which is why the best solution is to write in a way that keeps it from getting in in the first place. I also noticed once case of a direct quote that was actually quoting a source — the quote about the government controlling his mind. (Btw, the direct quote just before that, "urging him to join a terrorist group" — I didn't see that in the sources at all.) 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 4278087 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: On my preliminary check for likely copyvio, I'm turning up a bunch of verbatim passages from source. The ones I've noticed (there are a lot of sources, which makes it difficult to check everything) are mostly shortish passages, as few as five words, that are a bit distinctive... and then may also be indicates of a longer passage that's mostly the same except for a word changed here and there. That sort of thing is, I'm aware, quite difficult to get out of an article once it happens, which is why the best solution is to write in a way that keeps it from getting in in the first place. I also noticed once case of a direct quote that was actually quoting a source — the quote about the government controlling his mind. (Btw, the direct quote just before that, "urging him to join a terrorist group" — I didn't see that in the sources at all.) 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.

@Pi zero: What tool do you use to see that? I have used this tool and I do not see more than 19% of copy, which in my view does not reach a threshold of copyright infringement, at least in the various Wikinews where I edit. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 22:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I use toollabs:dupdet for the preliminary check. --Pi zero (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I have deleted the question in question and have tried to change some words using synonyms, so that "copyright problems" should no longer be so noticeable. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 23:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@AlvaroMolina: Do not copy a source text and change some synonyms to "scuff it up"; that does not work to avoid accusations of plagiary, and it does make a reviewer's task even harder by making it harder to spot the problem early. There is advice on this at WN:PILLARS#own. --Pi zero (talk) 23:52, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

We have been with this article for more than 1 week, it no longer makes sense to wait longer, the fixes do not work and I do not see plagiarism from my point of view (I do not see complete paragraphs copied or any of that, just a few sentences). I'll mark it for deletion and end of story. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 23:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

You aren't the sole author, so you don't have standing to request speedy deletion. As noted, it's not about the event on Friday anymore. We have a mechanism for disposing of an article that fails to achieve publication, which happens naturally without a need to accelerate the process. --Pi zero (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

So better to take over another, in my view there is no plagiarism, the copies consist only of small sentences and also are not more than 10 (something that does not even reach a violation). A violation is a complete copy of one or more paragraphs (or long sentences that do not consist of a dialogue or response to an interview). For me this article is good in your state, I'd rather put it aside and focus on other articles that are more likely. File:Alvaro Molina.png Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 00:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC) PD: Sorry if my English is not good.

@AlvaroMolina: My intent was simply to let you know, primarily for future reference, that modifying a source passage by substituting in synonyms is not something an en.wn writer should be doing. I realize it's more difficult for someone with less English fluency. There is some advice, very compactly expressed, at WN:PILLARS#own (that's pillar number five out of seven). There is also some discussion of this issue at WN:Plagiarism. --Pi zero (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4278425 [Passed]

Revision 4278425 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I cut a number of bits I couldn't verify; given we're at the extreme outer edge of freshness, there was clearly no other way forward. The long duration of this review is partly due to the difficulty of determining something is not in the sources, which is further multiplied when there are a lot of sources. 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 4278425 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I cut a number of bits I couldn't verify; given we're at the extreme outer edge of freshness, there was clearly no other way forward. The long duration of this review is partly due to the difficulty of determining something is not in the sources, which is further multiplied when there are a lot of sources. 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.