Talk:Irish rock band The Cranberries' lead singer Dolores O'Riordan dies at 46

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

It is not publishable in its current form, with poor machine translation and style, not to forget the foreign language sources — I am taking the bullet so a reviewer does not disqualify…
•–• 08:42, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

that whole lot of biography chunk is encyclopaedic and is not acceptable. Anonymous condolences — there are supporters and haters of every band, there always is some sort of condolence — but from someone who has a unique like/dislike relationship with the one who died is surely point of interest.
•–• 08:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
some of the sources I would be using:
  1. http://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-42703888
  2. https://washingtonpost.com/entertainment/music/dolores-oriordan-voice-of-the-cranberries-dies-at-46/2018/01/15/4139dffc-fa56-11e7-9b5d-bbf0da31214d_story.html
  3. https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/obituaries/2018/01/15/dolores-riordan-lead-singer-cranberries/8TE6vhRoXS4lrujYBt4cOO/story.html
  4. https://www.yahoo.com/news/dolores-o-apos-riordan-dead-170400920.html
  5. https://www.yahoo.com/news/dolores-o-apos-riordan-set-083700166.html
    •–• 08:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
do not cause an ec, I don’t want to face that problem on my mobile. I have pending edits to be saved.
•–• 08:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That crappy Boston Globe paywall would not let me access via incognito. Paywall can be bypassed, still can't see the full content. Kind of tricky. Can anyone else access it? [Since I was forced to use Chrome to access it, (which I hate to) I am not using it].
•–• 11:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Saskeh: Did you use machine translation? The translation was not up to the mark, and the YouTube links for the singles should either be avoided, or used as external link, in any case, it should never look like Wikinews is trying to promote it. Having a biography section (try to avoid sections for news articles) is encyclopedic, and should be avoided. However for an obituary, it is mostly the age old information of what that person did, there should be continuity in the tone. Try to use English sources, so that it is easier to review. The article was re-written from scratch, hence I have removed the link to Portuguese article (If the article is published, it will have a link to Portuguese article on the left hand side, by the Wikidata linkage). But if it were not to be re-written, a translated news article should have {{Translated Wikinews}} template -- that does not eliminate requirement of two mutually independent sources. Make use of {{w}} and {{Wikt}} to create links to Wikipedia and Wiktionary.
•–• 13:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4376613 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4376613 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: There is too much information in this article that does not come from the listed sources, unless it was all in the WaPo source which I can't access due to their paywall. Was part of this written from her Wikipedia bio? I don't know. I cannot give this a passing review.
Rest in peace, Dolores. Your passing saddened me quite a bit.

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 4376613 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:34, 17 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: There is too much information in this article that does not come from the listed sources, unless it was all in the WaPo source which I can't access due to their paywall. Was part of this written from her Wikipedia bio? I don't know. I cannot give this a passing review.
Rest in peace, Dolores. Your passing saddened me quite a bit.

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.

maybe you want to tell what all you could not find. [if you wait, the photo would load]
•–• 16:00, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What are you linking above? Are you trying to turn this into [[WN:OR]?
As far as what I couldn't find, it was about all the history about The Cranberries. The AP source has some of it, but nothing like the details in this. I halted the review about half-way because as a reviewer, I am not supposed to rewrite the article. What is the source for "one of the richest women"? IDK. I can't give you a list of every problem. Yes, it may be easier for you, but I don't know all the problems. I stopped once there were a few unverifiable things. Sorry, but that's all I can tell you. --SVTCobra 17:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)::[reply]
(Ouch, paywalled source. Hate when that happens.) --Pi zero (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and while your at it. Explain to me how iTunes and cranberries.com are sources, because I saw you revert the removal of them, saying "there is a reason those sources were used" even though they have no relevant content (that I can see). --SVTCobra 17:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I explained in the summary, it speaks about albums, songs, info about the band, member, personal life etc. And, AP says "For a time, O'Riordan was one of Ireland's richest women, but she struggled with both physical and mental health problems." If you don't think you can review the article, you should rather not review it; you do not know my way of writing, so no doubt you would face the issues. And not every written note is an OR, but just a path to understand how the sources were used.
•–• 22:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just did a small src-check, and I don't think anything is missing.
•–• 22:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It disturbs me to think that, because I've done such a large fraction of the review for so long, a reporter might have gotten used to counting on me knowing how they write. :-S --Pi zero (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I know how it feels from SVTCobra's perspective when Darkforg24 said something similar, but I am not saying I count on you to know how I write an article. Remember I asked you how you approached to write an article, and told you how I wrote an article. Also, the experience, and telling you on/off wiki where the info came from, you would know when/where/how to look for the info [also true with those notorious webistes which makes use of cookies/JS and yet sometimes we need to change the language] But I think I have explained the details of trickiness via comments.
•–• 22:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

iTunes as a source[edit]

iTunes is neither reliable nor objective as a source of music history. iTunes only purpose is to sell music. Listing iTunes in the sources is tantamount to advertising, which is especially egregious at this moment because grieving fans may want to listen to The Cranberries or O'Riordan's solo music. I'd rather use Wikipedia as a source. --SVTCobra 02:19, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there's something there that can be reasonably relied on — as opposed to the various things they can't be relied on for ‐ and the site was drawn upon for that, then it should be listed; otherwise, not. I expect to find out as I get into this review. --Pi zero (talk) 13:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cranberries.com as a source[edit]

Relying on self-published anything for anything other than a quotable statement is against policy. It's like using Trump's twitter feed as a source for what is going on the world. Stop it please. --SVTCobra 02:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely, using Trump's twitter feed as a source for what is going on in the world is in a class all by itself. :p  --Pi zero (talk) 17:31, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's like using Monsanto's website in an article about whether GMOs are harmful or not. --SVTCobra 17:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Well, in all seriousness, as far as I could tell it was being used to corroborate the list of what albums the band had produced, which is more like using Monsanto's website for information about what products they offer. --Pi zero (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon.com started as online book store and it still sells it, but saying “Amazon.com is a website to purchase books” is wrong. It is one of the things they sell, it is not the entire catalogue. And the best one do describe what all they sell is the website itself. (It is a different issue why would anyone want to list all the things they sell, since it is broad and huge list, however, in this article, mentioning number of albums, not the entire list was needed.) And there was need for Apple Music because they backed the fact-checking like band members, song years, singles released band member's role (which were all in agreement with other sources) but more importantly, mentioned one of the album (2002?) was a compilation album, and don’t count it. Besides, there has various newsworthy announcements via tweets, instagram, Facebook post, official blogs, etc. And all of them are valid sources. The question of advertising for Apple Music — well, YouTube video's are accepted as sources, what if the reader goes and watched the video, benefitting YouTube (and sometimes, the uploader). I remember the Zomato article and had used official blog for data breach announcement: what if someone goes and joins Zomato, now that they had fixed (in a real good way to fix that thing). For football articles, what if someone goes to FIFA/UEFA/club's website and buys future tickets? For articles with (now) paywalled sources, what if someone clicks to read and ends up paying to see the content (add The Guardian's donation demand to that, as well) — where would one draw the line? (Using AllMusic [something I have never heard of] as the source [though initially said “I would rather use Wikipedia” is ones personal choice. The information I had extracted from Apple Music was how I wanted, and all of my preferred sources, those notes which I make, helps, to benefit the reviewer who passed the article as they had explained in their essay.
223.237.235.154 (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
TL;DR except where you say it was "how I wanted, and all of my preferred sources". That's all well and good, but this is a collaborative website. This is not the first time that you (assuming for a moment that 223.237.235.154=Acagastya) have asserted that your choices and preferences come above all else, including policy. You do not have ownership over the article. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
if you wanted to use AllMusic, you would have added it and “collaborated”. But as I had mentioned I was taking the bullet, I used some sources and one can not leave a used source from the sources section. I favour using certain news orgs over another, Al Jazeera and Reuters over others — that does not mean anyone can say I should rather use some other sources. Don’t forget the collaboration offers anyone to write (with their preference what to write and which source to use)
223.237.251.96 (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4376858 [Passed][edit]

Revision 4376858 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • Re the consultation of the band's site and iTunes. I can see why a reviewer might reasonably object; they are, on the face of it, nowhere near being trust-worthy in general; one has to sift very cautiously through any information drawn from them, which in this case at least I was willing to do and it admittedly took a lot of time (though I'm also just slow anyway). The only point I recall drawing on the band's site for during review was the number of albums, which could be assembled from BBC but one was left wishing for some corroboration which came from the band's site together with a point in the iTunes item (referenced in an embedded html comment in our article, iirc). There was at least one point clearly stated on the iTunes page that I just lacked full confidence in and simply cut; such scrutiny made this an intense reviewing experience.
  • I gather there was a problem with a source paywallled for a reviewer, and the reporter found an identical copy elsewhere; thanks. Preferring the original of an article at the Independent to a syndication of it on Yahoo News! makes sense if it works, but unfortunately the Indepnedent saw fit to replace the article with an entirely different one (I figure it's likely to be a complete substitution because afaict the authors listed on the earlier article aren't on the later one at all).

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 4376858 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:34, 18 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • Re the consultation of the band's site and iTunes. I can see why a reviewer might reasonably object; they are, on the face of it, nowhere near being trust-worthy in general; one has to sift very cautiously through any information drawn from them, which in this case at least I was willing to do and it admittedly took a lot of time (though I'm also just slow anyway). The only point I recall drawing on the band's site for during review was the number of albums, which could be assembled from BBC but one was left wishing for some corroboration which came from the band's site together with a point in the iTunes item (referenced in an embedded html comment in our article, iirc). There was at least one point clearly stated on the iTunes page that I just lacked full confidence in and simply cut; such scrutiny made this an intense reviewing experience.
  • I gather there was a problem with a source paywallled for a reviewer, and the reporter found an identical copy elsewhere; thanks. Preferring the original of an article at the Independent to a syndication of it on Yahoo News! makes sense if it works, but unfortunately the Indepnedent saw fit to replace the article with an entirely different one (I figure it's likely to be a complete substitution because afaict the authors listed on the earlier article aren't on the later one at all).
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.


Surely, the same information could have been gleaned from sites that don't have the same commercial interest in sales and thus a conflict of interest. Might I suggest the well-respect music database and review site AllMusic? They have a complete discography as well as tabs for biographical information. Cheers, --SVTCobra 18:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)--SVTCobra 18:04, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
/me notes that website has listed a live album, skipped compilation album, but I was interested in studio albums only. Besides, who can come up with the best compiled list of albums they have released other than the band? /me remembers Premier League's website stayed Zlatan won the Champions League with Inter, though he had not. That error was not reflected in the Wikinews article. There is always a chance of errors. The best anyone can describe what XYZ company/club/person claims to offer/have won/what type of “stable genius” they are, is the company/club/personitself.
223.237.235.154 (talk) 18:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioning a time when an official site got something wrong argues against your case. AllMusic did not skip compilation albums, there's a filter for compilation albums on which The Cranberries appear. There are all kinds of reasons, a band could be incentivized to have an inaccurate discography on their official website. --SVTCobra 19:38, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
no, it doesn’t. Premier League is not a club. Manchester United and Inter got it right. The clubs Zlatan has played for. Middle agent in that case, PL, that got it incorrect.
223.237.251.96 (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, it sounds like it's the official site for the league in which he plays. Is it not? It doesn't sound like an independent reliable source. --SVTCobra 00:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
”doesn’t sound like an independent reliable source” — nice joke. PL dependent on ManUtd, that is the last thing anyone would want to know. Pi zero is the strictest reviewer I have seen and nobody exercises caution which is comparable with theirs. They would have never given the article a green light if what you said was true.
223.237.210.155 (talk) 02:53, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did you even read the review notes? --SVTCobra 03:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<pi zero drops in> Just to be clear: Infallibility is a papal thing, and me not even raised Catholic. --Pi zero (talk) 03:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SVTCobra, without cross examining the article you can not comment on what info came from where — if you expect straightforward answers in the sources, it would be an epic fail. One needs to deduct things. In any case, speaking of the PL source for Zlatan’s article, there was no issue if not being independent reliable source.
223.237.204.105 (talk) 03:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not talk about the Zlatan article anymore, because I don't know the details, and in the end it's neither here nor there. --SVTCobra 04:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what you mean by "neither here nor there" when you decided to disregard PL's website as independent or reliable without knowing about the article [or like you complained for this article, without seeing what exactly came from which source]
118.151.209.30 (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"neither here nor there" means it is not directly relevant to this article, so debating it will not solve the issues here. --SVTCobra 09:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is the thing -- it is relevant, but you don't seem to get it.
118.151.209.30 (talk) 10:59, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. Even 223.237.251.96 said "no, it doesn’t. Premier League is not a club." --SVTCobra 11:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
“no it doesn’t” was for that case does not go against this case. PL is not a club, and it is the League, the third party source (primary being only ManUtd since Zlatan’s contract with PSG was expired) Evidentally, third parties can get achievements, records, and stats incorrect, and in that case the point source is the ideal one. I also remember a Canadian website providing incorrect info for ssmallest star’s discovery, due to a small misunderstanding. If personal website can not be considered for what albums they have released, a study can not be considered reliable for what they have found.
223.237.212.185 (talk) 12:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to frame this discussion in terms of another article and another source. Please speak to this case. Any source is likely to have made a mistake at one time or another. My contention is that cranberries.com should not be accepted as a source because, essentially it is self-published and has an inherent bias. iTunes is a seller of music and has commercial interest in sales. Listing iTunes is roughly equivalent to advertising for them. --SVTCobra 13:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<pi zero dropping in again> We do use biased sources. Russia Today, for instance. (Heck, BBC is biased sometimes too.) We use them thoughtfully, taking the bias into account in what we believe, of course. But listing them in the sources isn't endorsement. In the case of iTunes, iirc there was no other source that mentioned Niall Quinn; but (besides doing a surreptitious sanity check), I did consider both what economic motive iTunes could have for claiming that Quinn had been the Cranberries' singer before O'Riordan, and how likely they would be to make the mistake of saying it was so if it weren't. I'm not saying iTunes is the best source one might choose; just noting that it's not altogether impossible to work with, and its use isn't an endorsement (though I can't deny its use here likely benefits them). --Pi zero (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I googled Niall Quinn and Cranberries and this was the first result: The Cranberries: A sweet and lingering fruit of the 90s, published January 16 by Sky News. --SVTCobra 14:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Self published work would still not fake the number of albums they have released, to the best of their knowledge. Besides, if listing iTunes is promoting them, listing YouTube videos is also a promotion, and so is adding any sort of research study (what was that paywalled study report Darkfrog24 used?) SVTCobra, you didn’t know how much information came from those two websites, you have been complaining about (best not to speak about something you don’t know) but just to let you know, I am the author, and I get to choose what sources I want to write about. I don’t just randomly find things out of air to know. I read the stories, and I try to find connections. Any information on ec-lead singer was not the focal point and I choose those sources which helps verification easily, and also overlaps, so that the information can be cross-checked. Maybe, next time, instead of replacing only some sources, you should try do do for the paywall, and share the bullet wound, if you want your preference of sources to be listed.
223.237.208.230 (talk) 14:29, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't imagine why a band would be dishonest on their website? And what product is YouTube selling? What product is a research study selling? They are not at all comparable. --SVTCobra 14:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding reasons for inaccuracy, recall (from Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) the Black family tree, which had had certain names blasted off of it. --Pi zero (talk) 14:45, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Pi zero. I watched about the first 30 minutes of the first Harry Potter movie. Did not see any of the others and did not read the books. But a band might want to hide an album which they are not proud of, or one where they had a bad record deal and aren't making any money off the sales. A band might also list an album they recorded, but were unable to get released. iTunes is also only likely to list songs and albums for which they have secured the right to sell. I don't know if it is the case anymore, but I think The Beatles were notably absent from the iTunes catalog for years. --SVTCobra 15:05, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
that’s the thing you got wrong. See I did not use the “albums” pages. The source mentions the 2002 album was a compilation album. By the way, I have had looked for the discography, and the hit was “seven studio albums” from other sources. Which was with agreement with the official website, and hence, I went for the primary point of info. And per the wordings, if there was a secret album, that is taken care of: because if it was a secret, it would not be released, and it says released XYZ more albums.
223.237.212.17 (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: (Heh.) The reference to the Black family tree was because they removed relatives from the tree whose politics they disagreed with, even disowning their own son when he rejected their ideology. (Btw, my advice re the Harry Potter stories is, if you choose to pursue thm further, read the books, don't bother with the movies.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:14, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
223.237.212.17, so you are saying you confirmed with other sources, yet chose to list the one with the greatest conflict of interest? You call it the "primary source", but do you really think the other sources got their information from cranberries.com? --SVTCobra 15:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not my job to investigate where they got the info from, however, whenever a club signs a player, where do you think MSM gets the information from? (I had confirmed after you failed the article stating things could not be verified. I can’t delist a source I have used; you know the rules)
223.237.214.246 (talk) 15:41, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You know, your arguments make it clear you never cared to read all the sources, or find which information came from where, not even those photos, which would have guided you, and without actually knowing what happened, it is pointless to tell you anything about it because you are not going to listen. You don’t know how minimal info it offered, almost the same string length of the signatures.
223.237.196.165 (talk) 15:46, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You did not make your notes available until after my review. And even now, I do not see them mention iTunes or cranberries.com. I see, The Independent, BBC, Washington Post, and Twitter. --SVTCobra 16:01, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I made it available because you said you couldn’t verify lot of info, and that would be the guide map. Those notes were made in the class, and info from iTunes/official website was added after I came home, after the various revisions that existed in preview. I generally avoid documenting two liner info from source in my journal, and thus, I paused when I saw what Independent had to offer.
223.237.255.204 (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Irish_rock_band_The_Cranberries%27_lead_singer_Dolores_O%27Riordan_dies_at_46&oldid=4377076"