Wikinews cannot claim fair use of any image whose copyright is bynother a news agency.
Generally for an article like this we would use an image of Kerry from Commons. It's better to use a free image anyway, since it can then be used by any other news site that syndicates our article. --Pi zero (talk) 18:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. That's very helpful. I'll use something from Commons.
That's a nice picture of Haider Al-Abadi. I predict it'll be deleted from Commons. It looks professionally done, or perhaps captured from a TV broadcast, and it's uploaded by an account with no other wikimedia edits who claims it as their own work. Sooner or later the Commoners will say, "I don't believe it", and it'll go. Leaving an ugly call to {{missing image}} on our article, since we consider the choice of picture to be covered under our archiving policy (so we can't replace an image with a different one more than 24 hours after publication).
Leaving me in some doubt about that choice of image. If it's deleted from Commons over doubts about its authorship, we couldn't claim fair use for an image under suspicion of being under a news service's copyright. --Pi zero (talk) 22:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)Reply
There was a substantial problem with distance from source (copyvio/plagiary). Do not copy passages from source and "scuff them up". Do not rely on one source too heavily. Information comes from the sources, but its presentation in the synthesis should be yours; see WN:PILLARS#own. Doing what it says there, your text should end up very different from the sources, but, as a sanity check, you shouldn't have more than three consecutive words identical to a source.
I made copyedits to increase distance of passages from source. Ordinarily, a reviewer would not be willing to do so much of that sort of thing; indeed, had I fully appreciated from the outside how much there was to do, I might not have undertaken to increase distance myself. The reviewer has to maintain sufficient independence of the writing of an article, or disqualify themself from publishing.
My hope is that, by studying what I did to increase distances, the reporter may get a better sense of what not to do. Keep in mind, though, that the changes I made are not ideal synthesis style. This whole article follows the Guardian source more closely than it ought to. However, there is nothing a reviewer can possibly do to address such broad article issues — indeed, my efforts as reviewer were to change as little as possible to achieve the required result (increased distance from source).
There were some specifics I didn't successfully find in the sources. Was the visit unannounced? As best I could tell the sources said what they were expected to discuss, but didn't actually bear witness to what they did discuss.
Avoid saying somebody "is expected to" do something. It's a sloppy reporting habit that's widespread in the mainstream media (setting aside that here it's part of something being overly close to source). If somebody is expected to do something, for factual reporting that should beg the question, expected by whom; this is part of the general danger of using passive voice in news writing, since the grammatical function of passive voice is to omit the actor, and too often the reason for leaving out the actor is that the actor is unknown or vague.
A key principle for NPOV on en.wn is to attribute claims to who said them. Don't assert subjective judgements, analysis, controversial claims, as if they were objective fact: attribute them, so that what you're reporting is the safely-verifiable objective fact that someone else (who matters, and whom you identify) said them. News neutrality has to be something that, with practice, can be achieved rapidly and reliably even by someone who has fairly strong feelings about the story; attributing everything subjective, controversial, analytic is a big part of how we accomplish it.
When I was all done, I wasn't at all sure more than two of the listed sources had been used. Do not list unused sources. We have a policy against listing unused sources, partly because it takes a reviewer a lot more time and effort to review when you list unused sources — review time is roughly proportional to the number of sources.
Don't predict the future; see WN:Future. It's also wise not to assume an article will be reviewed and published within a particular short timeframe (such as a few hours), since review is, like all wiki activities, by volunteers who may or may not be able to donate the significant lump of time and effort for a review that promptly.
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.
There was a substantial problem with distance from source (copyvio/plagiary). Do not copy passages from source and "scuff them up". Do not rely on one source too heavily. Information comes from the sources, but its presentation in the synthesis should be yours; see WN:PILLARS#own. Doing what it says there, your text should end up very different from the sources, but, as a sanity check, you shouldn't have more than three consecutive words identical to a source.
I made copyedits to increase distance of passages from source. Ordinarily, a reviewer would not be willing to do so much of that sort of thing; indeed, had I fully appreciated from the outside how much there was to do, I might not have undertaken to increase distance myself. The reviewer has to maintain sufficient independence of the writing of an article, or disqualify themself from publishing.
My hope is that, by studying what I did to increase distances, the reporter may get a better sense of what not to do. Keep in mind, though, that the changes I made are not ideal synthesis style. This whole article follows the Guardian source more closely than it ought to. However, there is nothing a reviewer can possibly do to address such broad article issues — indeed, my efforts as reviewer were to change as little as possible to achieve the required result (increased distance from source).
There were some specifics I didn't successfully find in the sources. Was the visit unannounced? As best I could tell the sources said what they were expected to discuss, but didn't actually bear witness to what they did discuss.
Avoid saying somebody "is expected to" do something. It's a sloppy reporting habit that's widespread in the mainstream media (setting aside that here it's part of something being overly close to source). If somebody is expected to do something, for factual reporting that should beg the question, expected by whom; this is part of the general danger of using passive voice in news writing, since the grammatical function of passive voice is to omit the actor, and too often the reason for leaving out the actor is that the actor is unknown or vague.
A key principle for NPOV on en.wn is to attribute claims to who said them. Don't assert subjective judgements, analysis, controversial claims, as if they were objective fact: attribute them, so that what you're reporting is the safely-verifiable objective fact that someone else (who matters, and whom you identify) said them. News neutrality has to be something that, with practice, can be achieved rapidly and reliably even by someone who has fairly strong feelings about the story; attributing everything subjective, controversial, analytic is a big part of how we accomplish it.
When I was all done, I wasn't at all sure more than two of the listed sources had been used. Do not list unused sources. We have a policy against listing unused sources, partly because it takes a reviewer a lot more time and effort to review when you list unused sources — review time is roughly proportional to the number of sources.
Don't predict the future; see WN:Future. It's also wise not to assume an article will be reviewed and published within a particular short timeframe (such as a few hours), since review is, like all wiki activities, by volunteers who may or may not be able to donate the significant lump of time and effort for a review that promptly.
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.
