Talk:Israeli Supreme Court overturns expulsion of US student

Review of revision 4438857 [Not ready]

Revision 4438857 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC). 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 showstopper here is that the event took place a week ago. Freshness is one of the three basic elements of newsworthiness. The date on an article is the date of publication, the date that its snapshot-in-time was taken. The basic form of this really looks pretty good — with some caveats (but most of these are likely easy to avoid once one's heard of them). An article should always have a status tag at the top, and in this case was also missing the required {{haveyoursay}} template. I recommend creating an article using one of the article creation forms scattered about the sight, such as the one at WN:WRITE; the form provides such elements automatically. I noticed redlinks, and demonstrated with one of them use of {{w}}; at least on en.wn, it's a highly nontrivial template that, amongst other things, enforces our local policy that wikilinks should use local targets when available; if there's no local target, it links to a sister project, by default Wikipedia. (There should also be some more wikilinks, btw; at least, wikilink the first mention of each country.) On a quick check I noticed a few passages a bit over-similar to sources; we're especially strict about "copyvio" here (term of art, actually covering both copyright and plagiarism). There's a bit about that at WN:PILLARS#own, and WN:Plagiarism. An infobox and some categories would be desirable; it's easy to catch that, of course, because it's obvious at a glance if they're not there. 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 4438857 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC). 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 showstopper here is that the event took place a week ago. Freshness is one of the three basic elements of newsworthiness. The date on an article is the date of publication, the date that its snapshot-in-time was taken. The basic form of this really looks pretty good — with some caveats (but most of these are likely easy to avoid once one's heard of them). An article should always have a status tag at the top, and in this case was also missing the required {{haveyoursay}} template. I recommend creating an article using one of the article creation forms scattered about the sight, such as the one at WN:WRITE; the form provides such elements automatically. I noticed redlinks, and demonstrated with one of them use of {{w}}; at least on en.wn, it's a highly nontrivial template that, amongst other things, enforces our local policy that wikilinks should use local targets when available; if there's no local target, it links to a sister project, by default Wikipedia. (There should also be some more wikilinks, btw; at least, wikilink the first mention of each country.) On a quick check I noticed a few passages a bit over-similar to sources; we're especially strict about "copyvio" here (term of art, actually covering both copyright and plagiarism). There's a bit about that at WN:PILLARS#own, and WN:Plagiarism. An infobox and some categories would be desirable; it's easy to catch that, of course, because it's obvious at a glance if they're not there. 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 was working on addressing the points you raised but noticed your first caveat. I admittedly misunderstood what “freshness” meant when I wrote this article. Because new information is still being published about this story, I thought it was permissible. Since I cannot change the time of the story, should I just move on and find another subject?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:00, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the review, Pi zero. To further clarify: the freshness may in some cases be addressed by a refocus. That is,

1. a new event is written of which is fresh, while
2. some of the current content remains at the end of the new story as background.

@TheGracefulSlick:

Here is a fresher event from October 12: The Tel Aviv District Court rejected on Friday (October 12th) the appeal (to Supreme Court?). The deportation was delayed to October 14, 10am local time.

"The Tel Aviv District Court rejected on Friday the appeal by the American student who was barred entry to Israel over alleged ties to the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement and detained for 10 days." (haaretz)

"Lara Alqasem, 22, had filed an appeal with the Tel Aviv District Court on Thursday after being held for more than a week since arriving from the United States to begin a master's degree at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, despite having a valid student visa." (aljazeera)

"Her deportation has been delayed until October 14 at 10 AM." (haaretz)

• "Israeli Court Rejects Appeal by Lara Alqasem, the U.S. Student Detained at Tel Aviv Airport" — haaretz, October 12, 2018
• "Israel upholds ban on US student Lara Alqasem over BDS support" — aljazeera, October 13, 2018

However October 12th is still not fresh enough. October 14th could be sufficiently fresh for publication.

00:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC) - time now (UTC)

If there is evidence online of the fact that the student was deported -- I couldn't find any, for some reason. Can you? -- then the refocus could work.

--Gryllida (chat) 00:08, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gryllida:, according to the latest reports, the Israeli Supreme Court has delayed her deportation until Wednesday. I could refocus on their final decision—whatever the outcome may be—if that is acceptable.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick: Yes this is acceptable. :) (Sometimes marked with {{prepared}} tag at the top, but it is optional.)

Not sure how it is possible given that in one of the sources I linked, the appeal was disallowed, but I guess someone higher made a different decision. I hope you can be more clear and less vague than the sources which we are reading. :) --Gryllida (chat) 00:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The 'when'; two sources for the focal event

Hello TheGracefulSlick,

1) "Lara Alqasem, a 22 year-old University of Florida student, has appealed against an expulsion order by the Israeli High Court." when did this occur? This needs to be added to the first paragraph. It is my understanding that

• the appeal itself occurred a long time ago (maybe even last week);
• hearing in the Supreme Court occurred this Wednesday the 17th;
• Supreme Court was 'friendly' according to the source provided, challenging the other side;
• Supreme Court needs to output a verdict - unknown when;
• deportation not done - the student still in the country is this correct? - to me it is unclear what is the current planned the deportation date.

2) The focal event --the subject of the headline and the first paragraph-- needs to be supported by two independent sources. Only one such source is currently provided.

--Gryllida (chat) 23:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gryllida: I updated the article in light of the court ruling in favor of her. It happened today so I also updated the date and slightly refocused the intro.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:33, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

1. The headline and the leading paragraph need to talk of the same thing, "The ___ Court ruled in favour of her" (with a few more words to clue the reader in"). This is not currently the case. 2. The dates need to be very clear, she was detained for over 10 days I think and after reading the first paragraph this is not clear to me either. --Gryllida (chat) 23:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4439816 [Passed]

Revision 4439816 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Identifying syndicated sources is important as it bears on mutual independence. I found several passages too close to source (two during automation-assisted preliminary check, one later during manual in-depth source-check). Avoid any technique that involves copying and then modifying a source passage; see WN:PILLARS#own, WN:Plagiarism. Don't direct-quote news sources unless they become part of the story. Headline needed updating. Don't overlook that. I'd rather not have made such a large change to the headline, as reviewer. 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 4439816 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Identifying syndicated sources is important as it bears on mutual independence. I found several passages too close to source (two during automation-assisted preliminary check, one later during manual in-depth source-check). Avoid any technique that involves copying and then modifying a source passage; see WN:PILLARS#own, WN:Plagiarism. Don't direct-quote news sources unless they become part of the story. Headline needed updating. Don't overlook that. I'd rather not have made such a large change to the headline, as reviewer. 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.