Talk:Frankfurt defuses World War II-era bomb, evacuates 60,000
Add topicLatest comment: 7 years ago by Pi zero in topic Review of revision 4343590 [Passed]
Adjustments
[edit]I was translating this article into Dutch, and I compared it with a German source: http://www.zeit.de/gesellschaft/zeitgeschehen/2017-09/bombenentschaerfung-frankfurt-massenevakuierung-zweiter-weltkrieg-sprengbombe They say: the bomb was 1,8 ton. Explosives in the bomb was 1.4 ton --Livenws (talk) 15:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you for the "more than" change. I don't speak German, so I would appreciate if you changed the English article to reflect whatever the proper weight should be. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 15:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- We require that the sources drawn on for the article be listed in the Sources section; that is what the section is there for, and our review process must verify everything in the article from the provided sources. Inserting facts without adding the sources used is creating a problem; it can easily force an (already overworked) reviewer to do even more work to make up for the lapse, while at worst it could prevent an article from reaching publication. --Pi zero (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Is there some style I should use with footnotes? Also, I found that the CNN source I used says: "specifically a 1.4-ton HC 4000 air mine, the statement said." --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Hameltion: We do not use footnotes for sourcing on en.wn. --Pi zero (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that, I was just wondering if you cite sentences. Is this good, just having sources at the end? --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Hameltion: Well, sometimes a reporter leaves an embedded html comment<!-- like this --> after a passage in an article, providing specific information about the sourcing of that passage. There's been some discussion lately between reviewers over how useful that is, since the reviewer should be studying the sources carefully, for themself, to determine all that any sources have to say about it, rather than assuming that what one source says in one place is all they need to know to have full confidence it. For my part, though I acknowledge the concern, I think that, depending on the situation, such embedded comments can be helpful to a reviewer if they exercise due caution. Another way to provide supplementary notes for the reviewer is to leave them here on the collaboration (aka talk) page; our review gadget goes out of its way to make sure the reviewer doesn't forget to read this page carefully before finalizing a review of the article. --Pi zero (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Btw, if sources disagree about something, we may want to either specify whose information we're using, or report that there is disagreement between sources (or both). --Pi zero (talk) 22:03, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I see. Would you like me to add hidden comments or have you already started the review? --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 22:05, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I put up {{under review}} on the article when I started the review, which requests edits not be made directly to the article, but instead any desired changes be explained here on the talk page. In this case I've noted your edit, and allowed for it. --Pi zero (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I hadn't read the whole template--sorry about that. --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 23:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I put up {{under review}} on the article when I started the review, which requests edits not be made directly to the article, but instead any desired changes be explained here on the talk page. In this case I've noted your edit, and allowed for it. --Pi zero (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Hameltion: Well, sometimes a reporter leaves an embedded html comment<!-- like this --> after a passage in an article, providing specific information about the sourcing of that passage. There's been some discussion lately between reviewers over how useful that is, since the reviewer should be studying the sources carefully, for themself, to determine all that any sources have to say about it, rather than assuming that what one source says in one place is all they need to know to have full confidence it. For my part, though I acknowledge the concern, I think that, depending on the situation, such embedded comments can be helpful to a reviewer if they exercise due caution. Another way to provide supplementary notes for the reviewer is to leave them here on the collaboration (aka talk) page; our review gadget goes out of its way to make sure the reviewer doesn't forget to read this page carefully before finalizing a review of the article. --Pi zero (talk) 22:01, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- I understand that, I was just wondering if you cite sentences. Is this good, just having sources at the end? --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- @Hameltion: We do not use footnotes for sourcing on en.wn. --Pi zero (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- Is there some style I should use with footnotes? Also, I found that the CNN source I used says: "specifically a 1.4-ton HC 4000 air mine, the statement said." --Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
- We require that the sources drawn on for the article be listed in the Sources section; that is what the section is there for, and our review process must verify everything in the article from the provided sources. Inserting facts without adding the sources used is creating a problem; it can easily force an (already overworked) reviewer to do even more work to make up for the lapse, while at worst it could prevent an article from reaching publication. --Pi zero (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Review of revision 4343590 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 4343590 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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 4343590 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer:
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. |