Talk:Local government elections held in Balochistan, Pakistan

Neutrality

The first sentence is analysis, non-neutral. Likely it can simply be deleted without detriment to the article. --Pi zero (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• What you mean? Is this article not fit for wikinews? --FSCEM45212 (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I haven't tried to do a full review of the article (I really can't right now; it's almost midnight where I am and honestly I need sleep). Most reviews involve some minor revisions; most articles have some things that need revising during review. The first sentence here has some difficulties, which I remarked on above. With some thought, I or some other reviewer may well be able to revise to eliminate the difficulty with the first sentence. I mentioned it here for the benefit of whoever reviews the article — whether it's me or someone else. --Pi zero (talk) 04:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Should I remove the first sentence? --FSCEM45212 (talk) 04:45, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

That's a possible solution. There may be other ways to fix the problem; also, I or another reviewer may be able to revise during review. --Pi zero (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I also note that the headline needs revision. Per WN:Headline, a headline should be a sentence (without a "." at the end); this one is currently a noun phrase. Also, we don't use appreviations such as "govt." in headlines. --Pi zero (talk) 04:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Then how can I change the headline to "Local government elections in Balochistan, Another step towards democracy". If you are capable of changing the headline, then change it. I wrote govt. in headline of article just because I wanted to shorten the headline as you told me.--FSCEM45212 (talk) 05:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 2219334 [Not ready]

Revision 2219334 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 06:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: For example, first sentence is sufficiently unspecific to read as bias. Style: Not ready: Please take a look at the inverted pyramid style, the Wikinews requirement for article structure. Comments by reviewer: Additionally to the inverted article structure, please: Specify the day in the lede. The event is no longer today. Look at italic comments throughout article body. Clarifications are required to maintain informative tone. Introduce the reader to the background and context. An average reader doesn't know the history of Pakistan's struggle toward democracy and what breakthrough the current elections made, if any. 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 2219334 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 06:37, 8 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: For example, first sentence is sufficiently unspecific to read as bias. Style: Not ready: Please take a look at the inverted pyramid style, the Wikinews requirement for article structure. Comments by reviewer: Additionally to the inverted article structure, please: Specify the day in the lede. The event is no longer today. Look at italic comments throughout article body. Clarifications are required to maintain informative tone. Introduce the reader to the background and context. An average reader doesn't know the history of Pakistan's struggle toward democracy and what breakthrough the current elections made, if any. 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.

Review of revision 2220623 [Not ready]

Revision 2220623 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: As noted in the previous review, background and context are needed. It's my impression that Belochistan hasn't held local elections since 2002; that's really important to the significance of this story, and therefore we need to say it. In fact, as noted above, the average reader probably doesn't know it. Additional sourcing is needed for the additional background, of course; everything has to be verifiable from cited sources, and the sources now listed don't explain this background information — presumably because they're all Pakistani news media and assume that their readers already know the background. This is probably the second most important thing to mention. It might work well to insert a paragraph break after the current first sentence, and add a new second sentence to the first paragraph briefly explaining this. (The sentence that was removed from the beginning of the first paragraph was, I suppose, trying to get at this very point about the significance of the event; unfortunately, it was too unspecific, and as far as I can tell it was unsourced.) 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 2220623 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:59, 8 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: As noted in the previous review, background and context are needed. It's my impression that Belochistan hasn't held local elections since 2002; that's really important to the significance of this story, and therefore we need to say it. In fact, as noted above, the average reader probably doesn't know it. Additional sourcing is needed for the additional background, of course; everything has to be verifiable from cited sources, and the sources now listed don't explain this background information — presumably because they're all Pakistani news media and assume that their readers already know the background. This is probably the second most important thing to mention. It might work well to insert a paragraph break after the current first sentence, and add a new second sentence to the first paragraph briefly explaining this. (The sentence that was removed from the beginning of the first paragraph was, I suppose, trying to get at this very point about the significance of the event; unfortunately, it was too unspecific, and as far as I can tell it was unsourced.) 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.

Review of revision 2223202 [Not ready]

Revision 2223202 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I couldn't find the following information in the sources: most of the numbers in the bulleted list (the per-party numbers). The bits about Khuzdar and Hub. (In fact, I though one source contradicted the bit about Khuzdar.) If the information is in the sources somewhere and I'm just not seeing it, please explain where. If it's somehow not in the sources, either provide sourcing for it or removing it from the article. I had a fair amount of trouble here with "distance from source" — that is, the way things were phrased in the article was too close to the phrasing in the sources. I think I've taken care of the passages like this in the current article. In general: Wikinews writers have to "use their own words"; that is, the information in the article is all from the sources but the way it's said is entirely different. Don't start with a source passage and then change a few words here and there to "scuff it up" so it's different. See WN:PILLARS#own. 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 2223202 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 15:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I couldn't find the following information in the sources: most of the numbers in the bulleted list (the per-party numbers). The bits about Khuzdar and Hub. (In fact, I though one source contradicted the bit about Khuzdar.) If the information is in the sources somewhere and I'm just not seeing it, please explain where. If it's somehow not in the sources, either provide sourcing for it or removing it from the article. I had a fair amount of trouble here with "distance from source" — that is, the way things were phrased in the article was too close to the phrasing in the sources. I think I've taken care of the passages like this in the current article. In general: Wikinews writers have to "use their own words"; that is, the information in the article is all from the sources but the way it's said is entirely different. Don't start with a source passage and then change a few words here and there to "scuff it up" so it's different. See WN:PILLARS#own. 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.

Review of revision 2227975 [Passed]

Revision 2227975 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There have been continuing difficulties with source passages being substantially copied. The reporter evidently needs to work on saying things in English in an altogether different way than they were phrased in the sources. 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 2227975 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There have been continuing difficulties with source passages being substantially copied. The reporter evidently needs to work on saying things in English in an altogether different way than they were phrased in the sources. 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.