Talk:Gun background checks a no-go in US Senate

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

Review of revision 1879225 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 1879225 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: The Senate rejected the proposal more than a week ago. Focusing a news article on that event does not fit the newsworthiness guideline, requiring that the event at most a week old with sources in the last 2–3 days.

Please re-focus the article a recent event. Is the Obama comment recent? If so, can you focus on it, answering the basic questions in the lede and providing at least two independent sources about it?

Please click "Edit" at the right top, and ask questions if you have them, to ensure timely progress of your work. Thanks.

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 1879225 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: The Senate rejected the proposal more than a week ago. Focusing a news article on that event does not fit the newsworthiness guideline, requiring that the event at most a week old with sources in the last 2–3 days.

Please re-focus the article a recent event. Is the Obama comment recent? If so, can you focus on it, answering the basic questions in the lede and providing at least two independent sources about it?

Please click "Edit" at the right top, and ask questions if you have them, to ensure timely progress of your work. Thanks.

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.

Hi there, thanks for reviewing. I'm fairly certain, based on the articles I used as references for my article, that the rejection occured this Wednesday 17, after the announcement of the vote on April 10. I could be wrong but I went to the recent news section on Al Jazeera as my starting point and this story had just broken. Thanks!

Ah, I see - I didn't realise what exactly happened on April 10. Thanks for your edits. Gryllida 13:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 1879717 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 1879717 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • 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:

  • First of all, there appears to have been a misunderstanding, whose most direct manifestations I was able to fix. The thing that got rejected was not the gun-control bill. It was an amendment to the bill. And it was rejected not by being voted down, which would have been a majority vote, but by somebody filibustering it and the Senate failing to achieve the 60 votes required to overcome the filibuster. That is all in the sources, though they don't make it easy to extract.
  • This particular amendment was announced on Wednesday of last week by Toomey and Manchin (btw there are also grammatical problems with that sentence in the article). However, I did not find the quote from Toomey anywhere in the sources; going above and beyond what one can reasonably expect of a reviewer, I believe it was said by Tommey, in an editorial in iirc the Philadelphia Inquirer, but I've not made an in-depth study to determine whether in that particular passage he was talking about the amendment.
  • The quote from Michelle Obama occurs in a video on one of the sources, but I didn't find clear evidence it was referring specifically to this amendment.
  • I've not attempted to source-check later parts of the article; understand, trying to source-check something and failing to do so takes a lot more time and effort than successfully verifying something from the sources. However, I do see a passage that seems likely to have more than one problem:
Other proposed bills which endeavoured to ban the sale of assault weapons like the one used in the Sandy Hook shooting and to place limits on the amount of ammunition which could be purchased in a single transaction also failed to garner sufficient votes.
Um. Besides these being not bills but amendments to a bill, I thought I read in the sources that the other amendments were expected to be defeated.
  • Please check that everything you've got here is correct and verified by provided sources.

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 1879717 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • 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:

  • First of all, there appears to have been a misunderstanding, whose most direct manifestations I was able to fix. The thing that got rejected was not the gun-control bill. It was an amendment to the bill. And it was rejected not by being voted down, which would have been a majority vote, but by somebody filibustering it and the Senate failing to achieve the 60 votes required to overcome the filibuster. That is all in the sources, though they don't make it easy to extract.
  • This particular amendment was announced on Wednesday of last week by Toomey and Manchin (btw there are also grammatical problems with that sentence in the article). However, I did not find the quote from Toomey anywhere in the sources; going above and beyond what one can reasonably expect of a reviewer, I believe it was said by Tommey, in an editorial in iirc the Philadelphia Inquirer, but I've not made an in-depth study to determine whether in that particular passage he was talking about the amendment.
  • The quote from Michelle Obama occurs in a video on one of the sources, but I didn't find clear evidence it was referring specifically to this amendment.
  • I've not attempted to source-check later parts of the article; understand, trying to source-check something and failing to do so takes a lot more time and effort than successfully verifying something from the sources. However, I do see a passage that seems likely to have more than one problem:
Other proposed bills which endeavoured to ban the sale of assault weapons like the one used in the Sandy Hook shooting and to place limits on the amount of ammunition which could be purchased in a single transaction also failed to garner sufficient votes.
Um. Besides these being not bills but amendments to a bill, I thought I read in the sources that the other amendments were expected to be defeated.
  • Please check that everything you've got here is correct and verified by provided sources.

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.


Thanks very much for your comprehensive review, I will attempt to fix my mistakes where I have misinterpreted sources and will include links to other sources from which I got quotes. I really appreciate your help, I understand you must have spent a long time doing it. The other amendments were expected to be defeated by one of the sources, which was published very early after Obama's press conference, and other sources updated that to them having been defeated. I will however, double check that.

Review of revision 1880554 [Passed][edit]

Revision 1880554 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • Removed some more things I couldn't find in the sources, and adjusted some passages for verifiability. (Likely did a few other things here and there; see detailed history of edits during review.)

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 1880554 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • Removed some more things I couldn't find in the sources, and adjusted some passages for verifiability. (Likely did a few other things here and there; see detailed history of edits during review.)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gun_background_checks_a_no-go_in_US_Senate&oldid=1880559"