Talk:Hurricane Dorian strengthens to Category 5, makes landfall in the Bahamas

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

Review of revision 4506857 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4506857 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • Something has gone wrong here. The headline says the focal event is that it strengthened to Category 4, with a side order of approaching the coast. Based on that, I expected a lede that would say somebody-or-other made an announcement of those things at such-and-such a time. However, the lede doesn't identify a specific event, and doesn't mention Category 4. The only mention I see of Category 4 is a definition at the end, which merely defines it.
  • I'm seeing a shortfall of attribution, here.
  • I could almost imagine the lede paragraph has been accidentally left off.
  • My prelim copyvio check turned up nothing significant, btw.

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 4506857 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • Something has gone wrong here. The headline says the focal event is that it strengthened to Category 4, with a side order of approaching the coast. Based on that, I expected a lede that would say somebody-or-other made an announcement of those things at such-and-such a time. However, the lede doesn't identify a specific event, and doesn't mention Category 4. The only mention I see of Category 4 is a definition at the end, which merely defines it.
  • I'm seeing a shortfall of attribution, here.
  • I could almost imagine the lede paragraph has been accidentally left off.
  • My prelim copyvio check turned up nothing significant, btw.

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.
@Pi zero: I have renamed it to reflect the focus on the approach --DannyS712 (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4507063 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4507063 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

Comments by reviewer:

  • The headline has been changed to make it consistent with the approach taken by the lede. More consistent, yes; but the inconsistency was not itself the primary problem. This approach lacks a crisp focal event, and there's a serious shortfall of attribution. The lede makes assertions of fact about what is "expected" and "still uncertain" and "may stretch"; that's analysis, we don't do that in Wikinews's own voice. We report factually that others say this has happened and that is likely to happen and the other is unlikely but might happen, and suchlike.

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 4507063 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:40, 31 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below.
  • Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer:

  • The headline has been changed to make it consistent with the approach taken by the lede. More consistent, yes; but the inconsistency was not itself the primary problem. This approach lacks a crisp focal event, and there's a serious shortfall of attribution. The lede makes assertions of fact about what is "expected" and "still uncertain" and "may stretch"; that's analysis, we don't do that in Wikinews's own voice. We report factually that others say this has happened and that is likely to happen and the other is unlikely but might happen, and suchlike.

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.

Review of revision 4507171 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4507171 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

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

Comments by reviewer:

  • From the latest set of changes, it seems something has not come through clearly in my earlier comments. Consider these alternative statements.
  1. The storm is expected to get worse.
  2. The storm will get worse.
  3. The 5:00 p.m. statement from the Illuminati predicted the storm will get worse.
Of these, (1) is the situation we had here at the earlier reviews; it does not clearly present a specific focal event, and it's missing attribution. (2) is the situation we have now, which is more of a problem because it has escalated the claim to an assertion of fact in Wikinews's own voice and it also violates WN:Future. (3), on the other hand, describes a specific event in the past, and can be made to work.

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 4507171 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below.
  • Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer:

  • From the latest set of changes, it seems something has not come through clearly in my earlier comments. Consider these alternative statements.
  1. The storm is expected to get worse.
  2. The storm will get worse.
  3. The 5:00 p.m. statement from the Illuminati predicted the storm will get worse.
Of these, (1) is the situation we had here at the earlier reviews; it does not clearly present a specific focal event, and it's missing attribution. (2) is the situation we have now, which is more of a problem because it has escalated the claim to an assertion of fact in Wikinews's own voice and it also violates WN:Future. (3), on the other hand, describes a specific event in the past, and can be made to work.

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.
@Pi zero: thank you for clarifying what I was getting wrong. I have rewritten the lede to attribute the info to the national hurricane center. Thanks so much --DannyS712 (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4507498 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4507498 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not ready: No longer a Focus problem; update needed. See below.
  • Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer:

  • The specificity and attribution problems have been eliminated; thanks.
  • Alas, in the time it's taken me to get my brain up to full revs for reviewing this morning, the story has new developments, without which a report based on 11pm Saturday evening would feel like "old news".
  • The current lede is overly long. If I were expecting to publish on this round, I'd insert a paragraph break between the first and second sentences. That ought to work to separate details from lede plausibly, and might even be an optimal solution; but if you've some small fraction of the later information you'd like to work into the lede, you'd need to craft that, as it'd be much too involving for a reviewer to bring about.
  • The article in current form doesn't mention the category strength of the storm, except in the last paragraph which defines the term and seems as if it doesn't belong because it's the sort of explanation one would expect after the term has actually been used, which in the current draft it isn't. (Likely won't be a problem after the update.)

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 4507498 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:39, 1 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not ready: No longer a Focus problem; update needed. See below.
  • Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer:

  • The specificity and attribution problems have been eliminated; thanks.
  • Alas, in the time it's taken me to get my brain up to full revs for reviewing this morning, the story has new developments, without which a report based on 11pm Saturday evening would feel like "old news".
  • The current lede is overly long. If I were expecting to publish on this round, I'd insert a paragraph break between the first and second sentences. That ought to work to separate details from lede plausibly, and might even be an optimal solution; but if you've some small fraction of the later information you'd like to work into the lede, you'd need to craft that, as it'd be much too involving for a reviewer to bring about.
  • The article in current form doesn't mention the category strength of the storm, except in the last paragraph which defines the term and seems as if it doesn't belong because it's the sort of explanation one would expect after the term has actually been used, which in the current draft it isn't. (Likely won't be a problem after the update.)

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.
@DannyS712: Looks like we've cleared the shoals of the focus/attribution problem, which leaves us with "only" the difficulty of Wikinews covering a breaking story which strains coordination of volunteer writing/reviewing. --Pi zero (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi zero: I've resubmitted it - focussed to updates about category 5 and landfall in the bahamas. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:00, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

The choice of images on our articles is considered a substantive decision, thus subject to our archive policy: we don't get to change our minds later on about what image to put on an article. (Cf. Template:Missing image/message.) We mustn't use a Commons-hosted image that's going to get replaced; and the one that was selected is, in fact, being regularly updated on Commons. Therefore, as an image we would have to choose one that's got the time stamp built into its name, since that would make it unlikely to be replaced. (Yes, we could solve the problem by locally uploading a fixed copy of the image... that's a lot of trouble to do, and to get right.)

For the same reason of substance, we avoid (in recent times) having a reviewer insert an image during review: reviewers generally shouldn't add information, and if the image choice is substantive, that makes adding an image a sort of adding information. In this case, and keeping in mind we need to move on this, I decided it was reasonable to replace the shifting satellite image with a presumably-fixed image from about the same time. Which I did. --Pi zero (talk) 21:02, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi zero: thanks. I looked at the new image - its a great choice; I don't think that you are too involved now to continue reviewing. Thanks for the note though --DannyS712 (talk) 21:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4507705 [Passed][edit]

Revision 4507705 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • Re the passage about how at the 11am advisory there were no hurricane warnings in the US: I removed it, even though it was technically true, because there was no way I could inject an indication that the situation had since changed, and high on the list of things a news site shalt not do is to tell people there isn't a danger when there is one.

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 4507705 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • Re the passage about how at the 11am advisory there were no hurricane warnings in the US: I removed it, even though it was technically true, because there was no way I could inject an indication that the situation had since changed, and high on the list of things a news site shalt not do is to tell people there isn't a danger when there is one.
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.
@Pi zero: thank you so much. About https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Hurricane_Dorian_strengthens_to_Category_5,_makes_landfall_in_the_Bahamas&diff=next&oldid=4507699 - I think I removed that source during one of the updates. I'll try to track it down again. Thanks for everything, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray[edit]

So glad this managed to get to press. Great job, Danny and Pi zero. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this article has already become outdated, as evidenced by the NOAA cone. Therefore, I believe the article about the boat should be the headline on the main page. SelfieCity (talk) 18:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hurricane_Dorian_strengthens_to_Category_5,_makes_landfall_in_the_Bahamas&oldid=4508786"