Talk:Hawaii's Kīlauea volcano releases ash plumes to 30,000 feet, prompting aviation alerts

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

Threats to humans[edit]

It maybe interesting to talk about the sulfer-dioxide in the air which is caustic to humans. Also how is FEMA, Red Cross, and others are working in the area. When you take a story and bring it down to the human level it is far more effective. AZOperator (talk) 22:57, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is dangerous to a lot of animals, so better say "caustic to many animals, including Humans".
•–• 22:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, forgetting the other in "humans and OTHER animals" is a slight peeve of mine. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:59, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The biological definition of the word refers to all members of the kingdom Animalia, whereas in colloquial use, animal often refers to non-human animals. --SVTCobra 05:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
something may or may not be lethal for every animal.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 07:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, SVT, that's why I don't make a habit of objecting when other people use it that way. I don't do it myself, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:22, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Headline[edit]

It bothers me that, although the content has been updated, the headline hasn't needed updating because it isn't specific enough to distinguish the shifts in focus. Though we also don't like to build into our headlines numbers that are likely to increase (such as precise death tolls from disasters). --Pi zero (talk) 17:30, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then change it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:21, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is something the author should be doing. They need to practice it and improvise. A reviewer can do it once in a while. But on a regular basis, it is not reviewer’s task. Because the reviewer does not know what the focus is about. The author knows it, and they should make sure it is reflected in the article.
103.254.128.130 (talk) 03:45, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4406426 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4406426 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not ready: See below.

Comments by reviewer:

  • This headline does not identify a specific focus; so much so that while the lede got altogether refocused (thank you), there was no reason to change the headline which had never described the particular focus in the first place. Choosing a fix for the headline is a challenge; counting the vents doesn't seem ideal, but might be made to serve, while one might use some other distinguishing feature (particular location, maybe?); it involves research and making choices, and therefore is not something an independent reviewer can do without self-disqualification.

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 4406426 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not ready: See below.

Comments by reviewer:

  • This headline does not identify a specific focus; so much so that while the lede got altogether refocused (thank you), there was no reason to change the headline which had never described the particular focus in the first place. Choosing a fix for the headline is a challenge; counting the vents doesn't seem ideal, but might be made to serve, while one might use some other distinguishing feature (particular location, maybe?); it involves research and making choices, and therefore is not something an independent reviewer can do without self-disqualification.

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.

I personally would like to hear if the FAA has put a no-fly zone over the volcano or is considering it. AZOperator (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

so-called "negation"[edit]

@Acagastya: I don't care that you changed it to "about" but what you replaced was '~' a tilde, not a '-' dash. Tilde is used in math to indicate approximately equal to, so it was not wrong. --SVTCobra 10:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike humans, the computer uses tilde for performing subtraction. '~' flips the bits. Speaking mathematically, ≈ is a better approximation as compared to ~ -- so where do we draw a - ? There is one suggestion "Omit needless words". That is not same as "Omit words".
•–• 11:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We are humans aren't we? Anyway, See w:Tilde#Mathematics. I am not a computer programmer, but according to [[w:Tilde#Computing] that's just one of a myriad of uses for tilde. Computers use $ for certain operations. Does that mean we can't use it for dollar anymore? Please be sensible. --SVTCobra 11:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It makes more sense to omit needless words instead of omitting words. Actually, "$" by itself should never be used because the question arises, "Which dollar? CA$? AU$?" It would be better if we stick to ISO currency code.
•–• 11:24, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good so putting US$ clears up the ambiguity does it? That's why "US First Lady" is also unambiguous.Got it. BTW, I will continue to use tilde as a symbol regardless of your silly computer talk. --SVTCobra 11:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, actually, there should be a standard practice, hence, the ISO code should be followed. "US First lady" is also ambiguous, because it is not just about which country are we talking about, but also, what is the meaning of "first lady". Just like "Canada tables a bill" would "produce confusion in the US", this would also. The "silly" talk was my choice of edit summary -- It is not that only US-based editors can write punny summaries. If you want to continue using tilde, you might end up reaching home. I will stick by "omit needless words but don't 'omit words'." on and off-wiki.
•–• 11:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon a technical point on terminology. "US First Lady" is not, in fact, ambiguous. Clearly it's possible for someone from another part of the world to not know what it means, but that's not ambiguity. --Pi zero (talk) 03:08, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4407461 [Passed][edit]

Revision 4407461 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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 4407461 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hawaii%27s_Kīlauea_volcano_releases_ash_plumes_to_30,000_feet,_prompting_aviation_alerts&oldid=4407464"