Talk:Heavy earthquake hits Sumatra, Indonesia
Add topicLatest comment: 14 years ago by Tempodivalse in topic Review of revision 991334 [Passed]
Review of revision 991334 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 991334 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Quick, quick, quick 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 991334 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Quick, quick, quick 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. |
Passed without categories? I know this is a relatively trivial thing, but categories should have been added before publication. Oh, well...cheers! Benny the mascot (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Considering this was very much breaking-news, i think that's okay - quality can be sacrificed somewhat for a speedier publish - as long as it is improved quickly after the story goes live. I actually added categories within two or three minutes after publishing. All fixed now. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, but still... You risked the possibility that nobody would remember to add the categories post-publish. The situation was less than ideal, is all I'm trying to say. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I published the article, not Tempo, and I agree with his reasoning, but if you've got any further questions, I'd be the one to ask them. Cheers, C628 (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- The last thing we need is a repeat of this, but I believe that the quality of our articles is a shared responsibility between writer and reviewer. Either of you could have taken the one minute (just one!) required to add 6 categories. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree with you in that the quality is a shared responsibility, but I would also say that for breaking news, some small pieces like categories (actually, maybe that's the only piece) can be sacrificed to get the article published sooner, as long as they're fixed quickly, which Tempodivalse did. Also, as the situation has been rectified, I'm not quite sure what this conversation will accomplish, and I expect we both have more important things to do. Cheers, C628 (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is more of an opportunity to discuss what should be done in future reviews. As for this particular situation, if Tempodivalse had forgotten to add the categories, there would have been no guarantee that someone else would add them. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- (e/c) Actually, I started adding categories within literally seconds of this being published, if you check the history log - only remembered about cats after i pressed "please review this article" and, bit concerned about edit conflicts delaying the review, waited until C628 had finished publishing it (we were collaborating in real-time on IRC, so I was able to time it). In any case, I had no intention of forgetting about them. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- This is more of an opportunity to discuss what should be done in future reviews. As for this particular situation, if Tempodivalse had forgotten to add the categories, there would have been no guarantee that someone else would add them. Benny the mascot (talk) 01:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I would agree with you in that the quality is a shared responsibility, but I would also say that for breaking news, some small pieces like categories (actually, maybe that's the only piece) can be sacrificed to get the article published sooner, as long as they're fixed quickly, which Tempodivalse did. Also, as the situation has been rectified, I'm not quite sure what this conversation will accomplish, and I expect we both have more important things to do. Cheers, C628 (talk) 00:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- The last thing we need is a repeat of this, but I believe that the quality of our articles is a shared responsibility between writer and reviewer. Either of you could have taken the one minute (just one!) required to add 6 categories. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- I published the article, not Tempo, and I agree with his reasoning, but if you've got any further questions, I'd be the one to ask them. Cheers, C628 (talk) 00:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
- Yea, but still... You risked the possibility that nobody would remember to add the categories post-publish. The situation was less than ideal, is all I'm trying to say. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)