Talk:Hamas fires rockets at Tel Aviv
Sources
[edit]I couldn't find the following in the sources:
- Israel declaring war *[Well, I've read it in 57 articles since October, so I suppose my brain placed it within the circle of 'The Sun is hot.']--Bddpaux (talk) 19:57, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Israel mobilizing 350,000 reservists *[Same here as above, but the number I keep reading is actually 360,000. Could swear I saw that in a source article.]--Bddpaux (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nearly 2,500 gunmen crossing the boarder during the Oct. 7 attack *Reporter corrected this.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- 6,000 rockets being fired as part of the Oct. 7 attack
I'm not sure about using WaPo as a source due to the paywall, though I am able to access the article without a subscription. I also don't see that it is used by the article. We need to use sources that we cite, per WN:SOURCE —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Bddpaux:, you're not concerned about this unsourced material or did I overlook it in the sources? Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 19:05, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I have an array of concerns about a broad swathe of things... but I like to keep it rolling. In terms of your favorite hobby of 'post-review reviewing' -- I will admit that many of these articles, where there is a TSUNAMI of source articles....you often have to watch those the most carefully. It is a deeply bizarre pathology that has made its way onto our shores in recent months. Why in the name of Holy Margaret do so many of our new contributors have a love affair with stacking up source articles? And: do a correction or whatevs -- it's fine. Do it. I'm tired.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- And one more bit in the furthermore arena: It did, as I reviewed it, slightly smack of 'Those are the bad guys and we are totally the good guys.' -- which has been,for years around here, a hard-to-deal-with issue in terms of Neutrality. Dealing with this WHOLE TOPIC, from a Reviewer stand point smacks of trying to navigate a barrage of artillery.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Regarding my 'favorite hobby of post-review-review,' I didn't realize it had risen to a level of being named. If anything, I'm more interested in a process of {{pre-review}} right now. My original question above was intended for me to learn the reviewing ropes, not calling anyone out for anything. I did go through each source specifically searching for the statements but I did not read them all word-for-word. I was genuinely asking for how you determined it was okay to publish, much like the question below to Heavy Water regarding concluding statements.
- I will not be monkeying with a correction for this article for a number of reasons, not least of which is it didn't go well the first time I stepped my toes in something like that: [1]. —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 21:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- And one more bit in the furthermore arena: It did, as I reviewed it, slightly smack of 'Those are the bad guys and we are totally the good guys.' -- which has been,for years around here, a hard-to-deal-with issue in terms of Neutrality. Dealing with this WHOLE TOPIC, from a Reviewer stand point smacks of trying to navigate a barrage of artillery.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, I have an array of concerns about a broad swathe of things... but I like to keep it rolling. In terms of your favorite hobby of 'post-review reviewing' -- I will admit that many of these articles, where there is a TSUNAMI of source articles....you often have to watch those the most carefully. It is a deeply bizarre pathology that has made its way onto our shores in recent months. Why in the name of Holy Margaret do so many of our new contributors have a love affair with stacking up source articles? And: do a correction or whatevs -- it's fine. Do it. I'm tired.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Concluding statements
[edit]@Heavy Water, I seem to recall from one of my earlier articles that concluding statements were not part of Wikinews style. I can't find it though. Is the final sentence "This war has been ongoing since." okay here, or should we avoid statements like that? —Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 15:47, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see a style problem with it. But it does seem like stating the obvious. Heavy Water (talk) 06:18, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Review of revision 4782597 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 4782597 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4782597 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:56, 29 May 2024 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. 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. |