Talk:Musician Joni Mitchell hospitalised after found unconscious in home

Review of revision 3368315 [Not ready]

Revision 3368315 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: It appears the latest tweet from one of the sources indicates she wasn't found unconscious. How to deal with something like that (which is just one tweet afaik, but would seem to warrant some sort of mention and some artistry in how to present the previous consensus) is well beyond the purview of an independent reviewer. The paragraph on the fire department spokesperson, is, at least from the word "paramedics" on, way too close to source. It's the same sentence as the source, "scuffed up"; don't do that. 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 3368315 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:48, 2 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: It appears the latest tweet from one of the sources indicates she wasn't found unconscious. How to deal with something like that (which is just one tweet afaik, but would seem to warrant some sort of mention and some artistry in how to present the previous consensus) is well beyond the purview of an independent reviewer. The paragraph on the fire department spokesperson, is, at least from the word "paramedics" on, way too close to source. It's the same sentence as the source, "scuffed up"; don't do that. 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.

Hey Pi Zero. Just changed the paragraph you mentioned. I direct quoted Rolling Stone instead. Thank you for letting me know I did that.

Also I tried to find the tweet that you highlighted. Joni Mitchell's website (with the quote talked of in sources) says she was found unconscious - probably just go with that than the tweet. =) MusicrocksUOW (talk) 06:40, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry I couldn't get back to this sooner. I'll take a look now. Wish I'd included a link to the tweet in my comments above (yet another lesson in what can go wrong when writing review comments; sigh). --Pi zero (talk) 15:32, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3371599 [Not ready]

Revision 3371599 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Direct quotes from sources are not allowed unless the source becomes part of the story (this comes to mind). I should have been more specific in my review comments (this is me metaphorically kicking myself). When reviewing the paragraph after that, I observed it said "Rolling Stone shared a tweet from CBC News Producer Leslie Stojsic which stated...", and my first thought was, it's unnecessarily complicated to mention Rolling Stone there unless either we want to give Rolling Stone credit for an exclusive, or there's some question of the information so we need to note who claimed it. But it's a tweet, so we ought to be able to see it on Stojsic's twitter account. So I switched over to the browser tab where I had the Rolling Stone source open, hoping they'd link to Stojsic's twitter account, and they did — but the most recent entry on it, which you can see here, is (emphasis added) Reports Joni Mitchell's health: Source tells me she's in hospital recovering after "minor medical emergency," was *not* found unconscious. Which, as I noted above, kind of modulates how one wants to present this story. Frustratingly, even that most recent development that I know of is from March 31. So at this point we need some sort of new development to restore freshness. 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 3371599 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:05, 3 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Direct quotes from sources are not allowed unless the source becomes part of the story (this comes to mind). I should have been more specific in my review comments (this is me metaphorically kicking myself). When reviewing the paragraph after that, I observed it said "Rolling Stone shared a tweet from CBC News Producer Leslie Stojsic which stated...", and my first thought was, it's unnecessarily complicated to mention Rolling Stone there unless either we want to give Rolling Stone credit for an exclusive, or there's some question of the information so we need to note who claimed it. But it's a tweet, so we ought to be able to see it on Stojsic's twitter account. So I switched over to the browser tab where I had the Rolling Stone source open, hoping they'd link to Stojsic's twitter account, and they did — but the most recent entry on it, which you can see here, is (emphasis added) Reports Joni Mitchell's health: Source tells me she's in hospital recovering after "minor medical emergency," was *not* found unconscious. Which, as I noted above, kind of modulates how one wants to present this story. Frustratingly, even that most recent development that I know of is from March 31. So at this point we need some sort of new development to restore freshness. 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.

Hey Pi Zero, ah fair enough about the direct quote - I will fix the paragraph so that it explains without scuffing or direct quoting. I saw the tweet you sent me the link to. I may just take the tweet out of the article - might be better that way. To make it a fresher article, I have found a recent source talking about the disease Mitchell believes she has had for a few years - it seems to be the main topic at the moment. Thank you. MusicrocksUOW (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

@MusicrocksUOW: Fwiw, since we have corroboration that that really is Stojsic's twitter account, there's no reason you can't use the twitter account itself as a source, if the information you're taking from it is that a message on Stojsic's twitter acount said such-and-such. We couldn't take it as fact that she wasn't found unconscious, but we could report, amongst all the other information here about what was said where, that that was said there. (Trust-worthiness depends, you see, on what you're trusting it for.) It does seem relevant for the reader to know that there's that dissenting report floating around out there. --Pi zero (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

@Pi zero - ok cool - have just added the tweet into the story, and also added it into the sources. I fixed up the paragraph on the paramedics as well, and I wrote in Mitchell's Morgellons Disease to add freshness into the article. Going to put it up for review again now. =) MusicrocksUOW (talk) 01:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3372486 [Not ready]

Revision 3372486 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I feel bad I didn't realize earlier what you meant to do. What you've added is a source with a later publication date, but freshness depends on when the information came to light rather than the date on the source. The information added to the article is all stuff that was already known some time ago. :-S 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 3372486 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:46, 4 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I feel bad I didn't realize earlier what you meant to do. What you've added is a source with a later publication date, but freshness depends on when the information came to light rather than the date on the source. The information added to the article is all stuff that was already known some time ago. :-S 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.

Hey, so should I take the last paragraph out then and leave it how it is? MusicrocksUOW (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No need to remove it, I think. (I've not specifically source-checked it yet, but I'm guessing there won't be a problem.) It's relevant background information, and it's given a reasonable place in the inverted pyramid. What the article needs is something new to happen, and that cause wouldn't be advanced by removing the last paragraph. --Pi zero (talk) 02:45, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3373861 [Passed]

Revision 3373861 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Here's an unusual clear case of refreshing by new information without changing the focus (the new information is clearly refreshing and also clearly not hefty enough to form a new focus). In such a case, the new information needs to be mentioned in the lede, as one of the functions of the lede is to show newsworthiness (see WN:PILLARS#style). To satisfy that requirement, a minimal amount of info from the first sentence of the second paragraph had to skip lightly over the paragraph boundary into the lede. In considering my ability to make that happen within my purview as an independent reviewer, I applied a (somewhat fuzzy) principle pointed out to me by a veteran reviewer some time back: if an article fix can only be done in one way, there's no moral difference between the reviewer doing it versus requiring someone else to do it. 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 3373861 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Here's an unusual clear case of refreshing by new information without changing the focus (the new information is clearly refreshing and also clearly not hefty enough to form a new focus). In such a case, the new information needs to be mentioned in the lede, as one of the functions of the lede is to show newsworthiness (see WN:PILLARS#style). To satisfy that requirement, a minimal amount of info from the first sentence of the second paragraph had to skip lightly over the paragraph boundary into the lede. In considering my ability to make that happen within my purview as an independent reviewer, I applied a (somewhat fuzzy) principle pointed out to me by a veteran reviewer some time back: if an article fix can only be done in one way, there's no moral difference between the reviewer doing it versus requiring someone else to do it. 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.

deleted image

{{editprotected}}

File:1974 Joni Mitchell.jpg was unfortunately deleted on Commons. Could someone please replace it with the {{missing image}} tag?

Thanks. Ixfd64 (talk) 16:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: Done. [₂₄Cr][talk] 18:27, 19 June 2022 (UTC)