Hopefully, as the reporter becomes more acustomed to Wikinews writing they'll be able to get things submitted much sooner. This is toward the outer end of its discretionary freshness window (a reviewer could easily call it either fresh or stale on the third calendar day after the event); any delay in review could put it beyond the discretionary window entirely, and there's little-to-no room to revise-and-resubmit if the reviewer finds it has problems not fixable during review (which I wasn't sure if would happen here).
The legal status of marijuana in the US is an important aspect of this story, on which the article was giving a misimpression: it's still just plain illegal at the federal level (afaik, only the discretion of the POTUS prevents the feds from prosecuting everyone involved, thereby likely sending the matter ultimately to the SCOTUS). I was, fortunately, able to address it with a minimal clarifying tweak (which I deemed within reviewer's purview).
Some passages were a bit close to source. Avoid starting with a source sentence and then modifying it; present information in an entirely original way, when possible blending information from multiple sources into a single Wikinews passage (and, reciprocally, scattering information from a single source passage to separate parts of a Wikinews article).
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.
Hopefully, as the reporter becomes more acustomed to Wikinews writing they'll be able to get things submitted much sooner. This is toward the outer end of its discretionary freshness window (a reviewer could easily call it either fresh or stale on the third calendar day after the event); any delay in review could put it beyond the discretionary window entirely, and there's little-to-no room to revise-and-resubmit if the reviewer finds it has problems not fixable during review (which I wasn't sure if would happen here).
The legal status of marijuana in the US is an important aspect of this story, on which the article was giving a misimpression: it's still just plain illegal at the federal level (afaik, only the discretion of the POTUS prevents the feds from prosecuting everyone involved, thereby likely sending the matter ultimately to the SCOTUS). I was, fortunately, able to address it with a minimal clarifying tweak (which I deemed within reviewer's purview).
Some passages were a bit close to source. Avoid starting with a source sentence and then modifying it; present information in an entirely original way, when possible blending information from multiple sources into a single Wikinews passage (and, reciprocally, scattering information from a single source passage to separate parts of a Wikinews article).
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.
@Pi zero: Hey, sorry I took so long on the article. I really expected to find other collaborators during the process. But, seeing that nobody joined in, I made sure to get the article done. I'm still new to the procedure here, and I'm definitely not a pro journalist, so I appreciate your help and constructive criticisms. --Bman214 (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
