Talk:Nelson Mandela lies in state as South Africa mourns

Comments

Everything in an article needs to be verified from cited sources. At least two mutually independent trust-worthy sources are needed. We really recommend, in general, choosing the sources and reading them before beginning to write.

See WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing. --Pi zero (talk) 21:44, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

I have added sources including government dedicated Mandela website.--Thuvack (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Might I also add that we had a team of two physically at the two venues and take the pictures. So they are valid eyewitnesses. --Thuvack (talk) 23:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 2231724 [Not ready]

Revision 2231724 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Each fact in the article needs to be accounted for. This is why original reporting is an advanced technique on English Wikinews: it requires thorough documentation, and typically involves planning ahead of the event to arrange for documentation. Note that page WN:Original reporting recommends taking handwritten notes; it's quite common to scan in handwritten notes and provide the scans (either on-wiki or, if there is some reason not to share them publicly, we have an email address they can be sent to). Note, one neutrality problem with the article was fixed, as were several problems of other kinds. There are probably other neutrality problems that would need fixing; whether all of them would be fixable by a reviewer, I don't know. I recommend being willing to scale back the article in order to get it published. En.wn writing has a steep initial learning curve; often a new contributor learns a lot from their first submitted article, but never does manage to get it published. 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 2231724 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 04:58, 12 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Each fact in the article needs to be accounted for. This is why original reporting is an advanced technique on English Wikinews: it requires thorough documentation, and typically involves planning ahead of the event to arrange for documentation. Note that page WN:Original reporting recommends taking handwritten notes; it's quite common to scan in handwritten notes and provide the scans (either on-wiki or, if there is some reason not to share them publicly, we have an email address they can be sent to). Note, one neutrality problem with the article was fixed, as were several problems of other kinds. There are probably other neutrality problems that would need fixing; whether all of them would be fixable by a reviewer, I don't know. I recommend being willing to scale back the article in order to get it published. En.wn writing has a steep initial learning curve; often a new contributor learns a lot from their first submitted article, but never does manage to get it published. 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.

• Oh, btw: this headline will have to change. An en.wn headline should be a sentence, in present tence and preferably in active voice. --Pi zero (talk) 05:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

How do I change the title of the article?. I propose the following: "Nelson Mandela lies in state" -- Thuvack (talk) 06:18, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Copy right Issues?

I presume this refers to the image used to illustrate the story?. I have uploaded this image onto Wikicommons and sourced proper copy right. I am in contact with the Photographer who is a Wikimedia ZA volunteer and can obtain a written statement of release if necessary.--Thuvack (talk) 06:15, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

In my review, copyright is "unreviewed"; that is, I didn't say anything about it one way or another. --Pi zero (talk) 13:02, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Verifiability & NPOV

I am going to add more sources to backup most facts. I concede that we could perhaps scale back on the sentence that details difficulties encountered by our correspondents, however this was not just unique to them only as there were other media houses that were treated similarily. I am going to look for sources here too.--Thuvack (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Please state any statements that still have any NPOV issues. I appreciate the edits you have done and the review you have provided. It has indeed given me a baptism I didn't expect as a long time Wikipedian myself :-) --Thuvack (talk) 06:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

You remind me, we have a page Wikinews:For Wikipedians.

I've been aware for some time, we need to overhaul our WN:NPOV page (a big deal, as you can imagine). The current page rambles; although it's possible to puzzle out our policy from it, there's stuff there that doesn't really apply, that was written very early in the project when the differences from Wikipedia weren't really understood. We don't cope with subjectivity through the give-and-take of many editors; we couldn't possibly do that, because there isn't time with a news article, because a news article has to be right before it's published, and because most news articles are only touched by two people — the reporter and the reviewer. So we use a simple formula: don't present subjective claims or opinions as fact, but factually report that someone else said those things. With practice, this allows a reporter to write cleanly neutral copy most of the time, even when they have strong opinions about the story; so the reviewer only has to pick up occasional lapses. --Pi zero (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

(I realize that account of news neutrality leaves some things out — it is possible to produce a biased article whilst presenting only facts. Which is one of the reasons it's quite nontrivial to overhaul our WN:NPOV page. But attributing claims is our first line of defense, our way of completely avoiding a wide range of difficulties that Wikipedia spends lots of energy debating.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Condition of the article

• The sourcing problem still exists. To start with,

Please explain, here on the collaboration page, where all the information in the article actually came from.

Providing sources that confirm some things, but not others, is of limited help. To review this, I need to account for everything the article says.

The story is written from first hand account of two correspondents (Clement Khanye (Wikimedia ZA volunteer & Media student) and Theresa Hume (Wikimedia ZA staff) who were sent to cover the memorial service at the stadium. I added sources to collaborate their first hand reporting.--Thuvack (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• Case in point, with both verification questions and a "neutrality" problem.

In the second paragraph (which now starts "The weather for the memorial service"), the first sentence is more-or-less corroborated since the 'rain boo' source mentions the rain. The statement that Zuma was booed is verified by that same source, though I see no mention there that it was the keynote, nor mention of the program director. The sentence about the sign language thing is now okay. However, besides these few things, the whole rest of the paragaraph is unsourced — so, where did this come from?

The sources of this paragraph is a conclusion that was drawn by our news correspondents who attended the memorial. i have added sources to coraborate their findings. I have found source of program director urging crowd to be disciplined during the speech and am adding now.--Thuvack (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Also note that the statement "which was mainly attributed to the fact that the day was not declared a public holiday" raises the question, who attributed it to this fact? The simplest solution here would be to simply say that the day was not declared a public holiday, and let readers draw their own conclusions.

I agree. Will change this now.--Thuvack (talk) 05:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

• When the article is ready to be reviewed, submit it for review.

--Pi zero (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I think it's ready now.--Thuvack (talk) 06:23, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 2236110 [Not ready]

Revision 2236110 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. 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: Right now, this is an article that apparently contains undocumented original reporting. That is, it seems information in the article came from original reporting — actual reporters reporting on what they saw, rather than information being drawn from news articles — but there is no documentation for the original reporting. We greatly value original reporting, but in order to allow original reporting on a wiki, we ask for extensive documentation of original reporting. The rule is, provide lots more documentation than needed; include everything you can think of. There are, therefore, two imaginable routes one could take, to try to get this to a publishable state. Either remove all the information that is original reporting, making the article a synthesis article; or, provide documentation for the original reporting. I'm not sure whether it's possible to provide documentation for the OR, because I don't understand how the article was written. So: Please explain, here on the collaboration page, where the information in the article came from. How did the article come to be written in the form that it was written? Where did the words come from? Knowing these things may help to know what to recommend doing for the article. I've now been through the entire article, compiling a complete list of what is and isn't verified by the sources. (Maddeningly, my laptop chose to crash just before I was going to submit this review, so I've had to try to reconstruct all of this from memory.) paragraph two, sentences two three and four: glitches, less than expected, not a public holiday. paragraph three, second sentence: quotations and heartfelt eulogies. One could figure these things would almost certainly be the sort of things that would be said, of course, but this appears to be somebody's description; whose? paragraph four. I didn't succeed in altogether verifying any of this from the sources. The last part, about Wikinews correspondents confirming, is explictly original reporting — but there are no notes on the collaboration page other than a statement that there were wikimedians at both events. So, as stated above, please explain how the article came to be. paragraph five, sentence one. I'm not sure there was anything in the sources about a media briefing, as mentioned in the second sentence, though as I recall the information presented by that sentence seemed solid. 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 2236110 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. 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: Right now, this is an article that apparently contains undocumented original reporting. That is, it seems information in the article came from original reporting — actual reporters reporting on what they saw, rather than information being drawn from news articles — but there is no documentation for the original reporting. We greatly value original reporting, but in order to allow original reporting on a wiki, we ask for extensive documentation of original reporting. The rule is, provide lots more documentation than needed; include everything you can think of. There are, therefore, two imaginable routes one could take, to try to get this to a publishable state. Either remove all the information that is original reporting, making the article a synthesis article; or, provide documentation for the original reporting. I'm not sure whether it's possible to provide documentation for the OR, because I don't understand how the article was written. So: Please explain, here on the collaboration page, where the information in the article came from. How did the article come to be written in the form that it was written? Where did the words come from? Knowing these things may help to know what to recommend doing for the article. I've now been through the entire article, compiling a complete list of what is and isn't verified by the sources. (Maddeningly, my laptop chose to crash just before I was going to submit this review, so I've had to try to reconstruct all of this from memory.) paragraph two, sentences two three and four: glitches, less than expected, not a public holiday. paragraph three, second sentence: quotations and heartfelt eulogies. One could figure these things would almost certainly be the sort of things that would be said, of course, but this appears to be somebody's description; whose? paragraph four. I didn't succeed in altogether verifying any of this from the sources. The last part, about Wikinews correspondents confirming, is explictly original reporting — but there are no notes on the collaboration page other than a statement that there were wikimedians at both events. So, as stated above, please explain how the article came to be. paragraph five, sentence one. I'm not sure there was anything in the sources about a media briefing, as mentioned in the second sentence, though as I recall the information presented by that sentence seemed solid. 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 No. 2: Response

Paragraph two, sentences two three and four- glitches, less than expected, not a public holiday.

I have offered two sources, which collaborate the fact that there was a delay with the public transport. Also, as I said our team was there and had to use the provided shuttles. This is also their first hand account.--Thuvack (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

As for the less than expected turn out. This is a first hand account. See photographs of different angles of the stadium here. I have also added another source that attests that the stadium was at thwo thirds full.--Thuvack (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph three, second sentence - quotations and heartfelt eulogies. One could figure these things would almost certainly be the sort of things that would be said, of course, but this appears to be somebody's description; whose?

This is the impression got by our correspondents. I have now also added a source to corroborate this.--Thuvack (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph four. I didn't succeed in altogether verifying any of this from the sources. The last part, about Wikinews correspondents confirming, is explictly original reporting — but there are no notes on the collaboration page other than a statement that there were wikimedians at both events. So, as stated above, please explain how the article came to be.

Please see a video recording done at the union buildings, by Clement Khanye which I have now editted and uploaded on commons here --Thuvack (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 2238564 [Passed]

Revision 2238564 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The removed paragraph appeared to me to be detail well beyond available documentation. Sufficient documentation for OR seems unlikely to matierialize after the fact, and it seemed unlikely that further not-ready reviews over this point would accomplish anything other than causing the article to go {{stale}}; hence my judgement to remove the problem material and proceed. 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 2238564 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The removed paragraph appeared to me to be detail well beyond available documentation. Sufficient documentation for OR seems unlikely to matierialize after the fact, and it seemed unlikely that further not-ready reviews over this point would accomplish anything other than causing the article to go {{stale}}; hence my judgement to remove the problem material and proceed. 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.

South African police service

They do not do their jobs as they should or rather most of them 41.113.50.102 (talk) 11:30, 10 November 2022 (UTC)