Talk:Islamic State Khorasan Province claims responsibility for attack at Crocus City Hall, Krasnogorsk

Started.

This is very breaking news so hopefully will be fresh long enough for a review, im signing off for now but will return later, Thanks!!! BigKrow (talk) 07:00, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Length

It's to short I know but I was in a hurry Sorry apologies... what needs to be done???? Thnx. BigKrow (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Both of the sources provided in the article have been updated so our version could be as well. The title could be changed to something less-specific such as "Terrorists attack Crocus City Hall near Moscow, Russia." The article could be expanded to discuss the 11 detained individuals. Also, CNN has a lot of updates that can be used to expand our version.[1] I don't have time this morning to do more work on the article, unfortunately. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

It's fine, thanks for the pointers!!! Talk soon. BigKrow (talk) 16:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Well, you could drop in a few more words or something.--Bddpaux (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I can't right now, stale then?? Srry busy... BigKrow (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Image has a false licence

I'm not a Wikinews editor but I noticed you were reviewing this item. For reference, File:Interior of Crocus Theater.jpg has been uploaded on Commons under a false licence. The process to initiate deletion on Commons has started, so it is up to you whether you want to use the image in the short time it is still up (I'm not familiar with your policies). From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC) I see.. BigKrow (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Done The image was indeed deleted and I've replaced it. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:38, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Notes for reviewer

I have added citations as <!--html comments--> after quotes or paragraphs where I have expanded the article. To see them you need to use the source editor instead of visual editor. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:37, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Will this be reviewed in time? Thanks. BigKrow (talk) 01:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Article can be refocused

The article could be refocused and further expanded with updated information. Four have been detained and apparently tortured. Three of those four may have already admitted guilt.[2] Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hopefully BigKrow (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewing

This is going stale quickly.--Bddpaux (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I know, hopefully it can be saved. BigKrow (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Review of revision 4773307 [Passed]

Revision 4773307 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Excellent contribution! 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 4773307 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Excellent contribution! 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.

Major issues

User:Bddpaux, User:Michael.C.Wright, User:BigKrow: It's far past the 24-hour window for significant changes, of course, but I think nonetheless I should point out several issues for the future. And, I suggest we consider a correction on account of the first, third, and fourth items.

• The headline declares IS-KP responsible, which is a statement that I think should be attributed especially given Russia's claims of Ukraine also being involved.
• The headline doesn't contain a verb as required by WN:Headline; a statement like "kills...injures" instead of "responsible for...killed...injured" would also make the headline more concise and direct.
• The headline reports the death toll as being over 60 and the injury count as being in the hundreds, inconsistent with both the lede and what I see in the sources.
• The lede claims the death toll was over 133, but I can't find confirmation in either source that it surpassed 133, although Sky News reported the Investigative Committee "added this [the death toll of 133] was likely to rise further". The lede also claims the injuries totaled over 145, but I can only find Sky saying "at least" 145, and Al Jazeera "more than 100".
• The third paragraph refers to the perpetrators as "terrorists", which the neutrality policy prohibits. Heavy Water (talk) 17:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

We've issued corrections in the past -- wish I'd have caught 'terrorists' during my review. I just can't remember how we did the banner for corrections.--Bddpaux (talk) 17:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

{{correction}}. Heavy Water (talk) 17:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I propose the following:

• New headline: "Islamic State Khorasan Province claims responsibility for attack at Crocus City Hall"

• Change first sentence of lede to "Armed gunmen killed at least 133 people and injured at least 145..."

• Change the word "terrorist" in the third paragraph to "gunman"

• Include the {{correction}} template

I can do everything above except rename the article. I believe that will now require elevated privileges, correct?

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 18:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, I think those changes would be considered much too significant to be made at this point (cf. WN:ARCHIVE#General conventions). Renaming a published article doesn't require any privileges beyond autoconfirmed, which is required for renaming any page. But that's been proposed in the past, since when a published article is renamed, the rename takes effect immediately, even before it's sighted (i.e., accepted by a reviewer). Heavy Water (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not tracking. You did say "I suggest we consider a correction on account of the first, third, and fourth items." But now you are saying those changes are too significant to make. Are you recommending we take no action and leave the major issues in the article? Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 23:19, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I was recommending we issue a correction and saying those changes are too significant to make at this point. I mean, there's one admin who does fix the relevant problems with the article when issuing corrections, but I don't think that's the usual way. Heavy Water (talk) 02:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I would argue we have an ethical obligation[3] to at least change the verbiage regarding the casualty counts. I don't think the change is so significant we should forgo transparency and accountability. I also propose the following verbiage for the {{correction}}:

"The first paragraph of the article reported that more than 133 were killed and more than 145 were injured. This is not supported by the sources. We wish to clarify that, according to the sources available at the time of publication, there were at least 133 fatalities and at least 145 injuries. We have updated the article to reflect these accurate figures."

I also would like to change the headline to "Islamic State Khorasan Province claims responsibility for attack at Crocus City Hall, Moscow."

I would go even further and also change "terrorist" to "gunman" and add a statement in the correction regarding fairness. But if you think that's too significant of a change, I'll defer to your experience.

We have issued corrections on an article years after it was published: Holocaust survivor and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel dies aged 87

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse too much but the article has now been translated into four different languages.[4] So I think some action is necessary. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

"forgo transparency and accountability": But issuing a correction admits we screwed up and provides readers with the accurate information. One can alter the text to correct the inaccuracy along with issuing a correction, but from what I've seen that's hardly a mandatory or even the usual practice. Issuing a correction alone is what I was suggesting. BTW, I'd suggest "over 100" injuries or such for the correction, since I could only find agreement between the sources that the death injury toll surpassed 100, but not that it reached 145 (addressing contradictions between sources being important for accuracy, among other reasons). Heavy Water (talk) 05:42, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Done I have issued a correction statement and left the article text unchanged. I also renamed the article to address the problems with the headline. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The restriction on significant changes at least 24 hours after publication applies to the headline too, afaik. Heavy Water (talk) 06:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Case in point: We should probably dig into our corrections/retractions policy around here.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

In the meantime, how do you feel about the above proposed correction? I'd like to get a correction issued before it's archived, which should be tomorrow. @Heavy Water, I'd love to hear back from you on this as well. I'm still not clear as to what action if any you recommend and I don't want to overstep on a published article. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 22:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bddpaux, @Heavy Water, where are we on the correction issued on this page? The correction hasn't been sighted so does that imply I should undo my changes? I'm still unclear about how the proposed correction policy and the archive policy interact. Which policy takes precedence? Heavy Water, you mentioned you thought the restrictions on changes after 24 hours applies to the headline as well, but you didn't say how that affects corrections. Also, how does this case compare to a previous correction made after years of being published?[5] Lastly, should we move this discussion, given we technically have no correction policy? A correction policy might become more relevant and needed if there is suddenly less-experienced reviewers added to the mix. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 13:14, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Well, there are some meaningful words here, but I am too tired/busy to take action at this time.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

WN:Correction policy, although you (Michael) have started to overhaul it, was written well before the modern review era and isn't anything more than what some assortment of Wikinewsies suggested at the time should be policy. Corrections aren't restricted by the archive policy; that would kind of defeat the purpose of issuing corrections. Not everything is documented on en.wn, nor does it need to be. The community has always focused more on newswriting and left a lot of documentation to institutional knowledge that isn't formally written down in the form of a policy or guideline. That is exactly one of the reasons the new loose attitude that you mentioned toward granting reviewer is dangerous.

As for what I think needs to be done here:

• As discussed previously, we need to move the article back to the headline as published per WN:ARCHIVE (Islamic State Khorasan Province responsible for more than 60 people killed including children and hundreds injured at Krasnogorsk, Russia concert at Crocus City Hall) — I think only an admin can do this because, after the redirect at that title was made into a double redirect by the second post-publish move, the double redirect was fixed by Neriah bot, so it is no longer a redirect without history besides the initial post-publish move, and needs to be overridden.
• Then, we need to add to the correction mention of the error with the death and injury tolls in the headline, and their inconsistency with the (also erroneous) stats in the lede. And simultaneously, we need to acknowledge in the correction we shouldn't have made an unattributed claim regarding who was responsible. Heavy Water (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Minor issues

User talk:ArtSmir Not saying I disagree with it, but see my question on your Talk page.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)