Re the word "rampage". The police used that word, and if we were quoting them, that would be fine. I wasn't comfortable describing the incident that way in Wikinews's own voice. We generally try to avoid emotionally charged words. Looking through the archives, I found almost nothing we called a rampage; not the Virginia Tech shooting, for instance. The Orlando shotting qualified as a rampage, and an incident in Australia where somebody got their hands on a tank.
We try to keep death tolls out of headlines, because we don't like to change headlines after publication (it can cause duplicate entries in some feeds), and death tools are at significant risk of changing within the first 24 hours after publication. Here, btw, the death toll did actually change on Wednesday morning when the wife was found under the floor. This is further complicated because the police claim that the wife was killed by her husband, while extremely plausible, is not as certain as the ascription of the other four to the gunman — a point that might perhaps have been brought out more clearly in the article.
The domestic violence incident mentioned by the police was not what happened at 8am, it seems likely to have happened Monday night and was the conjectured earlier event resulting in the wife's body being hidden under the floor. Btw afaict "domestic violence incident" should not have been in quotes because it was not presented by the sources as a direct quote from the police, and we do not directly quote the news sources unless, rarely, they become part of the story.
There were several significant passages I removed for failure to verify. That was a major problem; some reviewers would have not-ready'd the article for that much unverified material, and my own feelings on allowing it are mixed. I realize it sometimes happen that news outlets change their articles after publication, sometimes removing information (a practice Wikinewsies tend to abhor); but, to be clear, for a reviewer to try and fail to verify something from the sources is usually an extremely expensive operation, taking great blocks of time and effort.
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.
Re the word "rampage". The police used that word, and if we were quoting them, that would be fine. I wasn't comfortable describing the incident that way in Wikinews's own voice. We generally try to avoid emotionally charged words. Looking through the archives, I found almost nothing we called a rampage; not the Virginia Tech shooting, for instance. The Orlando shotting qualified as a rampage, and an incident in Australia where somebody got their hands on a tank.
We try to keep death tolls out of headlines, because we don't like to change headlines after publication (it can cause duplicate entries in some feeds), and death tools are at significant risk of changing within the first 24 hours after publication. Here, btw, the death toll did actually change on Wednesday morning when the wife was found under the floor. This is further complicated because the police claim that the wife was killed by her husband, while extremely plausible, is not as certain as the ascription of the other four to the gunman — a point that might perhaps have been brought out more clearly in the article.
The domestic violence incident mentioned by the police was not what happened at 8am, it seems likely to have happened Monday night and was the conjectured earlier event resulting in the wife's body being hidden under the floor. Btw afaict "domestic violence incident" should not have been in quotes because it was not presented by the sources as a direct quote from the police, and we do not directly quote the news sources unless, rarely, they become part of the story.
There were several significant passages I removed for failure to verify. That was a major problem; some reviewers would have not-ready'd the article for that much unverified material, and my own feelings on allowing it are mixed. I realize it sometimes happen that news outlets change their articles after publication, sometimes removing information (a practice Wikinewsies tend to abhor); but, to be clear, for a reviewer to try and fail to verify something from the sources is usually an extremely expensive operation, taking great blocks of time and effort.
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.
