Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
My apologies for cruelty. :( The journalist notes should be in dropbox in the upload_JWS folder, named "press conference IPC" that is in mp4a format. It was 173 megbytes in other formats so I found the most compressed file format I could. My question is near the very end. --LauraHale (talk) 17:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Also, the 60 people total there was a count done by Hawkeye7. We know there were five Australians in the room, because two were in front of us, we were two and there was one that asked a question from another part in the room. --LauraHale (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
At request, a second version of the audio was also provided to jws, "ipc recirding 2.ogg", which I found much more useable (though still problematic). --Pi zero (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Other than a few points on the talk page, the material available consists of an ogg file on jws. I've listened to all of it at least twice, most parts at least thrice. Unfortunately, if I removed everything from the article I'd been unable to verify, that would mean deleting the last two out of five paragraphs, leaving the article with a strange bent to it. Here are the specific difficulties I had:
At the start of para 4, description of q/a of reporter for Vancouver Sun. Listening to what was said, it seemed to me the question was not about the future of the Games and the main points of the answer were not here.
I couldn't find the bit about nearly double accredited media organizations. Admittedly I couldn't make out some of the early part of the audio, but that part of the audio wasn't question/answer (I think), so if that's where it is, the text here would be incorrect that it was in an answer to a question.
Don't see any sign of sourcing for when the next press conference is to be.
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.
Other than a few points on the talk page, the material available consists of an ogg file on jws. I've listened to all of it at least twice, most parts at least thrice. Unfortunately, if I removed everything from the article I'd been unable to verify, that would mean deleting the last two out of five paragraphs, leaving the article with a strange bent to it. Here are the specific difficulties I had:
At the start of para 4, description of q/a of reporter for Vancouver Sun. Listening to what was said, it seemed to me the question was not about the future of the Games and the main points of the answer were not here.
I couldn't find the bit about nearly double accredited media organizations. Admittedly I couldn't make out some of the early part of the audio, but that part of the audio wasn't question/answer (I think), so if that's where it is, the text here would be incorrect that it was in an answer to a question.
Don't see any sign of sourcing for when the next press conference is to be.
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.
Erk. The daily briefings will be at 11am. This appears on video screens in the MPC. It was why it was actually put on the Wikinews Paralympic planning page. Removed it because probably not that relevant for most readers. (And I don't know if I want to go to that.) Improved wording of everything based on notes. --LauraHale (talk) 04:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)Reply
Wasn't sure of the written notes (where I think the materials since first review are on page 3 btw :-), so used the ogg file again, which was quite efficacious; picked up a couple of subtleties that way.
Just as a note for the future on what can spice up reports of this kind, if we could have worked in the direct quote (this is is what the written notes say; I'd double-check the ogg, since we have it) "We're here for the long haul", then made that a (left) pull-quote, one suspects that would work. 'Twas a good sound bite.
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.
Wasn't sure of the written notes (where I think the materials since first review are on page 3 btw :-), so used the ogg file again, which was quite efficacious; picked up a couple of subtleties that way.
Just as a note for the future on what can spice up reports of this kind, if we could have worked in the direct quote (this is is what the written notes say; I'd double-check the ogg, since we have it) "We're here for the long haul", then made that a (left) pull-quote, one suspects that would work. 'Twas a good sound bite.
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.
