Talk:Ninth World Games open in Santiago de Cali, Colombia

I got a ticket (this one). I wrote everything I see, and with the other fonts I Organized my information. I taked the pictures. --Sahaquiel9102 (talk) 07:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1962849 [Passed]

Revision 1962849 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 08:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Original reporting notes could be a little more comprehensive, or better used to support existing sources. They might be able to give a better idea as to some facts. The example is the booing thing: Neither source mentioned audience reasoning so it was removed. This could have been discussed in to how it was known to be true. Otherwise, good first effort. 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 1962849 of this article has been reviewed by LauraHale (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 08:24, 26 July 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Original reporting notes could be a little more comprehensive, or better used to support existing sources. They might be able to give a better idea as to some facts. The example is the booing thing: Neither source mentioned audience reasoning so it was removed. This could have been discussed in to how it was known to be true. Otherwise, good first effort. 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.

Further remarks by a substantial not involved Not-Reviewer

As a fundamental information the duration is missing, also a hint what kind of sports takes place ... just saying because the author asked for translation --Itu (talk) 03:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I do not believe that appeared in the Spanish or Esperanto article, so I let it pass. (There was enough other information in the article to establish newsworthiness in my opinion and to contextualize the event adequately.) I had some initial confusion because I know the World Games as a large sporting event for people with intellectual disabilities. The names for the events are the same. Did a sanity check to note they were not before publishing. --LauraHale (talk) 06:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The event star at the 8:10 OM Colombian hour, and finished around the 10:30. I think a link in the news to the Wikiedia's article of the World Games 2013 is enough to know what kind of sports are played (There are 31 official sports and 5 invitational sports). --Sahaquiel9102 (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Uh, i meant how long the games take place, normally as from..to... the duration of the opening ceremony is not for higher interest. --Itu (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, I did look at the English Wikipedia article for a sanity check. (Most successfully used for participation numbers.) The article did not support the second biggest sporting event claim. Besides which, for English Wikinews, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. (though leeway is given if on the talk page, the reporter says they wrote most of the Wikipedia article and it is almost entirely fully sourced. the accumulated reputation of the reporter also helps when using Wikipedia as a source.) This is already probably off topic, but yeah, unless the sources support it, it shold not go into the article. (Preference on English Wikinews is to remove unsourced information and get an article published, if after the information removal, the article still passes al criteria. Sometimes, you get to the point that removal leaves stories gutted or missing key information.) --LauraHale (talk) 06:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course it's possible to remove things while unsourced, but if you remove basic content thats a really bad Preference. And it ist still impossible you can't find out the dates how long such a big event takes place. --Itu (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is, the preference is to keep said material. The choice as a reviewer is this: 1) I can leave the unsourced information in the article, mark it not-ready for publication, leave feedback so the reporter knows they need to add references or more extended journalist notes to make the information verifiable. The reporter may never come back and the article may not ever get published. 2) The reviewer can find additional sources and improve the article. In doing so, the reviewer becomes a substantial contributor to the article and has to recuse themselves from reviewing. This extends out the publication time. 3) The reviewer can remove the unsourced information and then publish the article. Each scenario is slightly different. In this case, I chose the last one. In other situations, depending on the information missing and accumulated reputation of the author, other potential problems in reviewing, a different decision might be made. I have done number 2 on a few occasions, especially with a topic I find interesting that I would like published. I have also done number 1 a few times. Given the new reporter status, I made the decision to do 3 because it feels better to make a minor fix (remove information not sourced, comment on that in the review) then not readying the article and adding to new contributor frustration. --LauraHale (talk) 07:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

To supplement my last answer: i always used to mark all kind of issues directly in the (source)text. Now i try to improve the kind of marking so that, in ideal, no-one is able to ignore the (re)marks....

I see two problems: 1. Do not make concessions to the cost of the product. You cannot afford that. 2. The involved-thing: if you only make compelling improvements or extend about 20% text, you should not feel involveld therefore. --Itu (talk) 07:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It isn't the amount of text that is involved that precludes some one from reviewing after editing. Sometimes, in trying to effectively neutralize a marginal article, changing a small portion can substantial change the article. Or rewriting one paragraph to add information, remove POV problems and add sources that support this can get you to the point where you should recuse. Most experienced English Wikinews contributors know where the line is... but I was not going to, in this instance, look for additional sources and add information. Doing so here would have been potentially a value judgement. It would have taken the focus off the opening ceremony and focused the article on the Games themselves. The focus of the article was clearly on that. --LauraHale (talk) 08:20, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────┘
Wikinews has wrestled with the conundrum of where you end up crossing the line between impartial reviewer, and content contributor. It is a judgement call that's taken very seriously, and one that develops only with practice. I'd say Laura took the right decision here, people subbing copy to Wikinews are only 'cut some slack' in sourcing, or sloppy OR notes, when they have established a fair degree of reputational capital. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 19:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

hu.wikinews.org/w

Hi !

In Hungarian wikinews page it's not possible to register as a new user, nor to create a news page. Can you do something about it? http://hu.wikinews.org/w

--Njfgo (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's closed. --Itu (talk) 09:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If there are four or five editors who are interested in contributing to it, go to Incubator on meta, ask Hungarian Wikinews be re-opened on meta. Have a few contributors work on the project on incubator to demonstrate renewed interest. After a while, ask Langcom to then open the project in the main space again. --LauraHale (talk) 10:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)