Talk:Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting suspect appears in court

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

Review of revision 4277305 [Not ready][edit]

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. 20px 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. 20px 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][edit]

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. 20px 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. 20px 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. 20px Alvaro Molina (Let's Talk) 20:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


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][edit]

@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. 20px 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. 20px 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. 20px 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. 20px 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][edit]