Talk:Michael Jackson doctor charged with involuntary manslaughter

Quote at beginning of title

As it stands the title is "'Unlawfully and without malice': Michael Jackson doctor charged with involuntary manslaughter". I do not agree with this style of headline writing. It seems very much like a tabloid or something like that, perhaps broadcast journalism could get away with this, but Wikinews should be better than that. I know that "Michael Jackson doctor charged with involuntary manslaughter" is a boring title, but titles aren't supposed to be exciting, they are supposed to tell you what's going on. Calebrw (talk) 14:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Cue most prospective readers browsing Google News choosing some spectacularly biased diatribe from the Daily Mail or National Enquirer over Wikinews coverage. There may have been an element of WN:POINT to SVTCobra doing this, but - once shortened - it is far more likely people will read it than the dull-as-ditchwater version you appear to prefer. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There was, which is why I used an unpublished story, so not to disrupt. --SVTCobra 14:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So as not to repeat myself, unnecessarily, i'll just give a diff of my comment on a similar thread, what I said there applies here as well. Just my opinion. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm with Tempo, SVT and Calebrw. No, the two titles are not neccesarily "sensationalist" and the quotes are real, but they are not presenting the news and just the news without any comment or spin. Especially this title, "unlawfully and without malice" is suggesting, although not neccesarily true, that Wikinews believe it was unlawful but it was without malice. This is not what we are doing here-readers browsing Google News who are looking for a particular type of news will always choose the Daily Mail or the Enquirer; we can't compete with them directly as we are offering a different type of news.    Tris   16:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"is suggesting, although not neccesarily true, that Wikinews believe it was..." - No it does not. You should learn what quotation marks are. C'mon, Tris, you've got a good command of our language! I have to oppose the 'interesting' title here, because it just felt rediculous to quote the test for an offence when somebody is charged with it. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Review of revision 954749 [Passed]

Revision 954749 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:24, 9 February 2010 (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 954749 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:24, 9 February 2010 (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.