Talk:Hurricane Dorian leaves trail of destruction in the Bahamas

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

category 3[edit]

@SVTCobra: I believe Dorian has been upgraded to category 3 again. --Pi zero (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It seems so. I made it clear that it was at the time Dorian left the Bahamas. I don't want the article to turn into a weather report. --SVTCobra 13:06, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thoughts on focus[edit]

The focal event as presented here has actor Dorian, and the act is that of leaving destruction behind it in the Bahamas. Evidently this is a combination of Dorian leaving the Bahamas, and the destruction left in its wake. The departure is certainly a viable focus, and the destruction can be taken as the "angle" from which the departure is being viewed; but some caution is warranted because the focus has to be an event rather than a process, and the discovery of the devastation is an ongoing process likely to continue unfolding for some time. The phrase "the level of destruction became clear" doesn't work; it's kind of subjective, analysis-y, WN:Future-ish. My first attempt to address this in review is to remove the problem clause; which I'm doing early in the review, leaving plenty of time to see how it works. It does leave the lede without any explicit mention of the trail of destruction facet; as reviewer I wouldn't be able to make something up out of whole cloth to replace it; so I'm hoping either no replacement is needed, or some other solution emerges (on which I await enlightenment). --Pi zero (talk)

Alternative to the removed clause in lede (although I don't think it took long to fly over the islands and at least take photos/video of the destruction): the scale of Dorian's destructive trail began to reveal itself. --SVTCobra 14:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Didn't find"[edit]

I think it is important to state just how slow the storm was moving for the reader to understand how long the Bahamas were beaten upon. Unfortunately, CNN removed that bit from their Sep 4 article, but I found it repeated in a Sep 3 article, which I have added to sources. It can be found in the sub-section "Storm slowly moved out". --SVTCobra 15:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I did feel the piece was weakened by losing that bit. --Pi zero (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"easterly turn"[edit]

That bit is based on the map from NOAA in the BBC source, but it is obviously not the "latest" anymore. As far as it being different than previous forecast, I refer to our first Dorian article. I don't know if it is appropriate to add it back with an "as of yesterday at 5:00 a.m. (0900 UTC)". --SVTCobra 16:19, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4509114 [Passed][edit]

Wikilink in quotes[edit]

@SVTCobra, Pi zero: What is the rule about adding links in quotes? Here Pi zero added one to World War II while reviewing Retired US Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens dies, and it stayed in; I added a link to w:Marsh Harbour Airport, which is less known and more helpful (in my view). --DannyS712 (talk) 04:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

And here Green Giant (t · c · b) adds one while reviewing United States President Trump dismisses Secretary of State Tillerson --DannyS712 (talk) 04:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I'll get back to you in a moment, but please stop expanding NOAA and other things. As long as they have a link, people who are unfamiliar can find out what it stands for. Especially in image captions. --SVTCobra 04:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Okay, will do, sorry (though I edit conflicted with sharing [1]) - my point is that there is clearly a diverse set of views regarding style, on matters that the style guide doesn't cover - Pi zero approved each of my edits, and now you object to them; that is reasonable, but I'm just pointing out the benefits of an update to the style guide --DannyS712 (talk) 04:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Imho NOAA etc. are fairly reasonable in image credits. --Pi zero (talk) 04:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikilinks undesirable in direct quotes?[edit]

@SVTCobra: I'd never heard of this principle; I've never hesitated to wikilink within a direct quote. Any thoughts on what the origin of the principle would be? (I was going to say it couldn't be from standard style guides because they aren't for hypertext, but then it occurred to me this could be some sort of adaptation of some older general principle... though I don't recognize it.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, there are a few views, and I may have carried the one about links in direct quotes from Wikipedia back to Wikinews. Our WN:Style Guide says this about quotes which really isn't much. However, what did take from WP which I think is valuable, is it is easy to manipulate a quote by putting links into it. How did you know he meant that airport? Did you make an assumption? Pretty much all the islands have some airport of some sort, several of them international airports. So while putting links into direct quotes may not be explicitly against policy, I think it is a slippery slope. I hope that suffices for now because it is my bedtime. --SVTCobra 04:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I came off as hostile. I'm just frustrated by the lack of guidance in the style guide, and the high level of 'institutional knowledge' I guess that is in the minds of experienced users here but not documented. Again, sorry. Have a good night, --DannyS712 (talk) 05:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Re DannyS712. It's true, on one hand we try to keep the style guide simple and short, so that it can be read straight through in one session if one wishes to do so, and also because we don't like the level of red tape we see at Wikipedia (and which we're apt to tease them about); and on the other hand this does mean a lot of institutional knowledge ends up in the living minds of Wikinewsies, which can make it challenging to extract the information. Capturing and passing on that sort of knowledge is, to my mind, a major challenge of the project (and not just here, or even just on wikis; I could argue it's a major challenge facing human civilization this century).

Re SVTCobra. I appreciate habits can be easy to carry between projects. Wikipedia has different circumstances, though; there a wikilink is more apt to be needed for explanation, whereas here we seek to make our articles self-contained, so that following a wikilink is only for further information, not for basic explanation. Plus, we have review. As for this particular link, I did check it carefully before accepting it; I'm reasonably satisfied that Marsh Harbour International Airport is the only international airport in the Abacos; and the direct quote names Marsh Harbour in the preceding sentence. --Pi zero (talk) 05:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

It was very late at night for me and I did not have the full mental acuity to evaluate the quote and link. I guess linking to a person or a thing can be OK, but best to be avoided if possible. Despite our review process, links in quotes can be a way of putting words in the mouth of another person (this is obviously not an example of such). --SVTCobra 16:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Wikilinking requires caution, verily. An advantage to our general limitation of wikilinking to keywords. --Pi zero (talk) 17:01, 6 September 2019 (UTC)