Talk:Magnitude 6.3 earthquake hits New Zealand's South Island; dozens dead

Review of revision 1182900 [Failed]

Revision 1182900 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: Articles should be at least three-paragraphs long. This is definitely a huge event, so I suggest waiting until more details come to light (deaths, injuries) in order to expand it. 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 1182900 of this article has been reviewed by Diego Grez (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: Articles should be at least three-paragraphs long. This is definitely a huge event, so I suggest waiting until more details come to light (deaths, injuries) in order to expand it. 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.

I disagree in the assessment, for Wikinews to become more crediable it needs to be able to be faster in its response to events as they unfold. To get a basic story on such significant should be priority as with all media they start with a single para say it happend then they build the story in depth as it evolves. Gnangarra (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not questioning the article as it is now. I reviewed a specific version, which contained barely one paragraph, while our policy clearly states that articles should be at least three-paragraphs (except in breaking news situations, where two paragraphs and a single source are generally accepted, although the article needs to be subsequently expanded and get another source.) Diego Grez ^{return fire} 03:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I support Gnangarra. If we wait for sufficient information to become available for three paragraph's worth of prose, the event may have fallen out of date. Imagine someone checking wikinews for informaiton, and finding no article: I think they're less likely to return than if they find at least some - maybe just a single paragraph. Yewbarrow (talk) 17:35, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but no, that goes against our policies, we cannot publish articles that have a single paragraph, even if it's the end of the world. The suggestion for "waiting until more details come to light" was in order to "expand" the article, something that wasn't really needed, and the article is already published. Diego Grez ^{return fire} 17:38, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I suggest the policy is wrong. I understand the reasons for your suggestion, but I feel they're less important than the one I spoke about in my original post. The article is published, but I'm making a general point. Is this the appropriate place to discuss it ? Yewbarrow (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

If a story can't produce three paragraphs of news (which is a pittance), it isn't newsworthy. I disagreed with the reviewer's suggestion for just that reason; and I don't believe in artificially holding up an article just to make it longer later. However, the reasons we're sometimes slow publishing things here are spectacularly not due to delays waiting for information to become available. (If anything, the opposite: a very large article may be held up being reviewed because reviewing it is an obviously colossal job that any given reviewer is therefore less likely to be able-and-willing to undertake.) Publication delays are because we're a volunteer news site — which is non-negotiable because that's what we are by definition. News is not somebody hearing something and "publishing" it — that's a blog; an "article" submitted for review isn't news until it's passed rigorous review by an uninvolved reviewer, which is why we are a news site rather than a blog.

There are things we are very good at. We have a hard-earned reputation for neutrality and accuracy, which might sound like minor things if you don't notice what other news outlets are like. It's inherently impossible for our synthesis articles (we're not talking about OR here) to win at the scooping game, except in a few odd situations like when we're the first English-language outlet to carry a story from the media of some other language. Our recipe for success is to accept that we can have those strengths and cannot escape that weakness, and publish our stories as promptly as we can within the framework that gives us our special strengths. Our recipe for disaster is when we get obsessed with publishing every story at breakneck speed, or, at least as bad, with not publishing any story unless it's published at breakneck speed — because while that road doesn't lead to succeeding at the things we're not good at, it does lead to failing at the things that make Wikinews great. --Pi zero (talk) 19:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I know that signficant delays can and do occur because of a lack of reviewers thats not the issue here, I came looking to see what had been written when I became aware of the event and I only found the the article because I knew where to look. At the time I read it while it was one paragraph it had three sources it was clearly a notable event the prose was ok and the information was neutral and accurate. I saw no validity in the delay for more information, such events are never one story articles if WN wants to encourage collaboration then getting an initial story (in these events) to the main page should be a priority. That said this isnt the forumn for bringing change to policies, I just disputed the reason for the failed review and that too has passed Gnangarra (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1183013 [Passed]

Revision 1183013 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 08:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1183013 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 08:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.