Surprisingly, the NYT article is accessible — if opened in an Incognito/Private browsing window. They've been a serious problem in the past as Wikinews does not accept paywalled/subscription sources. Unfortunately, the WSJ article will have to be dropped from sources as it demands a sign-in/subscription.
The rationale behind rejecting paywalled sources is that nobody should need to give away any personal data, or actually pay, to verify the content of a Wikinews article. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
 |
Revision 4220620 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC).Reply
Comments by reviewer:
- I can't access the NYT source (it's paywalled; I haven't been able to duplicate the trick brianmc describes above), and I probably can't access the WSJ source either. We do have a policy prohibiting pay-to-read sources; these problems often take folks by surprise, though, which I suspect may be because sites use paywalls with complicated conditions on them so that some people get through and others don't. But as a practical matter, the reviewer needs to be able to access the sources.
- Don't ever refer to anyone (no matter how appalling you might find some of them) in Wikinews's voice as a "terrorist". The terms terrorist/terrorism are so politicized it's impossible to use the term neutrally. We can only use those terms when reporting what someone else said; see WN:Attribute. For example, here, if the Russians and Syrians said they were targeting terrorists, then we can objectively report they said that, but we can't say that the perpetrators of the incident last month were terrorists.
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 4220620 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC).Reply
Comments by reviewer:
- I can't access the NYT source (it's paywalled; I haven't been able to duplicate the trick brianmc describes above), and I probably can't access the WSJ source either. We do have a policy prohibiting pay-to-read sources; these problems often take folks by surprise, though, which I suspect may be because sites use paywalls with complicated conditions on them so that some people get through and others don't. But as a practical matter, the reviewer needs to be able to access the sources.
- Don't ever refer to anyone (no matter how appalling you might find some of them) in Wikinews's voice as a "terrorist". The terms terrorist/terrorism are so politicized it's impossible to use the term neutrally. We can only use those terms when reporting what someone else said; see WN:Attribute. For example, here, if the Russians and Syrians said they were targeting terrorists, then we can objectively report they said that, but we can't say that the perpetrators of the incident last month were terrorists.
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 4220785 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC).Reply
- Copyright:
 Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Style:
 Not ready:
Comments by reviewer:
- The way the event is put, it's mixed with background and allegations. Instead, we need to put the details of what exactly is known to have happened first, then the allegations and reactions of various governments, and then the background, in the so-called inverted pyramid style. This is to make the readers entertained by the real detail about news rather than by the manner in which the news is put. (Upon reading the article the first time, I didn't get any clear idea of what was done, or where.)
- As a part of the above, the first paragraph should answer the five Ws and one H in a concise way. (Then the second paragraph may do the same but in more detail.)
- Doing all this requires knowledge of what happened. I think the author knows it better than me (it would require me quite a bit of effort to read the sources and put the whole picture together in working memory). Please do it as soon as possible before re-submitting the story for review.
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 4220785 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:15, 3 June 2016 (UTC).Reply
- Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Style: Not ready:
Comments by reviewer:
- The way the event is put, it's mixed with background and allegations. Instead, we need to put the details of what exactly is known to have happened first, then the allegations and reactions of various governments, and then the background, in the so-called inverted pyramid style. This is to make the readers entertained by the real detail about news rather than by the manner in which the news is put. (Upon reading the article the first time, I didn't get any clear idea of what was done, or where.)
- As a part of the above, the first paragraph should answer the five Ws and one H in a concise way. (Then the second paragraph may do the same but in more detail.)
- Doing all this requires knowledge of what happened. I think the author knows it better than me (it would require me quite a bit of effort to read the sources and put the whole picture together in working memory). Please do it as soon as possible before re-submitting the story for review.
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. |
@Nicholas Preddey: @Nudge:
There is many sources. This means it may easily take an hour and a half to read them all and process the information therein.
Are they all used in the writing of the article? If they're not, they may be removed.
(The sources section is only for listing sources which the information was pulled from into the article, not for listing every possible source about this topic. That makes reviewer's work easier.)
--Gryllida 07:19, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
To put the event upfront, would it be better to rewrite the first two paragraphs as following?
- On Tuesday in the Syrian city of Idlib, rebels of the Jaysh Al-Fateh fired mortar shells and rockets at the communities of Al-Fou’aa and Kafraya. This was allegedly a retaliatory action for Russian airstrikes on these targets. Later, eight injured civilians were treated at a local field hospital.
- Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, said yesterday that United States is requesting Russian airstrikes avoid targeting the al-Qaeda branch in Syria, the Al-Nusra Front. The United States defended its request to Russia, saying it asked Russia to avoid hitting civilians, but Russia denies it has been causing civilian casualties. The situation is fluid, with denial and rebuttal.
That is something I am not sure of -- whether the focal event needs to be the yesterday one or the Tuesday one with further fresh developments in next paragraph.
From my understanding the article needs to be rewritten in past tense. --Gryllida 08:21, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
The allegation that these were Russian airstrikes seems to be a subject of a debate. I have not yet read deeply enough to figure out what evidence there is.
If there is a remaining doubt in the fact, we could just say «Tuesday's airstrikes» instead.
--Gryllida 08:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
| |
Revision 4221430 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC).Reply
- Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Newsworthiness: Not ready: There's a bit of a focus problem here; hard to classify, but since it's to do with focus I'm listing it under newsworthiness. See below.
- Verifiability: Not ready: See below.
- NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
Comments by reviewer:
- This article has a focus problem. A recent attempt to refocus it didn't entirely succeed, and before that it already had focus problems (I looked at it last night, before the refocus, but wasn't mentally sharp enough for a review).
- At first the focus seemed to be the incident on Tuesday; but as time has gone on, it's gotten harder — and more confusing — to portray that as the focus. The article seems to be really about the fog-of-war that surround the incident on Tuesday. Reading it over last night, I found the rest of the article hard to follow because (in retrospect) I was being told by the headline and lede this would be an article about an incident on Tuesday, and was therefore unprepared for the article to be about the claims and counterclaims in the several days following the incident. By the time I was reading it, the choice of focus in the headline and lede was also becoming a freshness problem: The incident was by then already four calendar days past; the lede should show the article is newsworthy, which includes showing freshness, and although the article later talks about information come to light in later days, the lede gave no hint of this — and also the rest of the article didn't clearly set out the timeline of claims and counterclaims, which it really should, to help the reader make sense of the storyline.
- The attempt to refocus the article on a more recent event has put in a new lede, but there are two difficulties. The new lede doesn't even mention Tuesday's incident, but both the headline and the rest of the article body are really still focused on the Tuesday incident and its aftermath of claims and counterclaims. I suspect this article still wants to focus on the extended fog-of-war surrounding the Tuesday incident, and that could be made to work if it's embraced boldly — there's a remark somewhere at WN:PILLARS, I think, that the headline, lede, and body of an article should all agree about what the focus is — but atm the lede is missing the mark on that focus in a different way than it was missing the mark before the attempted refocus.
- There are truly too many sources for a reviewer to handle, here. I've seen articles with more sources, but the ones I'm thinking of were huge articles, and the reporter had meticulously embedded html comments in the article telling the reviewer which source article to look it for which fact, all through the article. Things like
<!-- from AlJaz June 1 -->.
- The WSJ source is still listed. That source is paywalled, so can't be used both in practice and per policy.
- Another reviewer has offered a number of comments, just above, which I also commend to the reporter's attention.
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 4221430 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:48, 4 June 2016 (UTC).Reply
- Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Newsworthiness: Not ready: There's a bit of a focus problem here; hard to classify, but since it's to do with focus I'm listing it under newsworthiness. See below.
- Verifiability: Not ready: See below.
- NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
Comments by reviewer:
- This article has a focus problem. A recent attempt to refocus it didn't entirely succeed, and before that it already had focus problems (I looked at it last night, before the refocus, but wasn't mentally sharp enough for a review).
- At first the focus seemed to be the incident on Tuesday; but as time has gone on, it's gotten harder — and more confusing — to portray that as the focus. The article seems to be really about the fog-of-war that surround the incident on Tuesday. Reading it over last night, I found the rest of the article hard to follow because (in retrospect) I was being told by the headline and lede this would be an article about an incident on Tuesday, and was therefore unprepared for the article to be about the claims and counterclaims in the several days following the incident. By the time I was reading it, the choice of focus in the headline and lede was also becoming a freshness problem: The incident was by then already four calendar days past; the lede should show the article is newsworthy, which includes showing freshness, and although the article later talks about information come to light in later days, the lede gave no hint of this — and also the rest of the article didn't clearly set out the timeline of claims and counterclaims, which it really should, to help the reader make sense of the storyline.
- The attempt to refocus the article on a more recent event has put in a new lede, but there are two difficulties. The new lede doesn't even mention Tuesday's incident, but both the headline and the rest of the article body are really still focused on the Tuesday incident and its aftermath of claims and counterclaims. I suspect this article still wants to focus on the extended fog-of-war surrounding the Tuesday incident, and that could be made to work if it's embraced boldly — there's a remark somewhere at WN:PILLARS, I think, that the headline, lede, and body of an article should all agree about what the focus is — but atm the lede is missing the mark on that focus in a different way than it was missing the mark before the attempted refocus.
- There are truly too many sources for a reviewer to handle, here. I've seen articles with more sources, but the ones I'm thinking of were huge articles, and the reporter had meticulously embedded html comments in the article telling the reviewer which source article to look it for which fact, all through the article. Things like
<!-- from AlJaz June 1 -->.
- The WSJ source is still listed. That source is paywalled, so can't be used both in practice and per policy.
- Another reviewer has offered a number of comments, just above, which I also commend to the reporter's attention.
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 4221447 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC).Reply
- 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 ready: See below.
Comments by reviewer:
- The headline isn't commensurate with the content.
- There are thirteen sources here for an article with four paragraphs and about nine sentences.
- Apparently the focal event claimed by the lede is only supported by a single source.
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.
|
I am not seeing a direct connection from the 'hospitals' in the headline to the lede, or even to the second paragraph.
May we name this "Kurdish militias targeted in northern Syria" instead? (Assuming that fact has been established for sure, with little controversy.) --Gryllida 02:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
| |
Revision 4221918 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC).Reply
Comments by reviewer:
- Two important principles are that (1) the headline, lede, and body should all agree about what the focus of the article is, and (2) the focal event should be corroborated by two mutually independent sources.
- Atm the headline presents a hospital targeting as the focus, the lede presents 24 hours of shelling as the focus. I'm uncertain about the body, perhaps it does agree with the lede but things aren't entirely clear to me. There's definitely a strong discrepancy between the headline and lede, though.
- It looks as if there may be only one source for the focal event, if the focal event is the 24 hours of shelling described in the lede.
- I'm finding this hard to follow. The lede talks about "militants", but then the second paragraph talks about three different groups (well, four if you count the Russians), one of which are called militants but I really can't tell how any of it relates to the things said in the lede. The lede talks about the last 24 hours, but since it's a given that no article is going to get reviewed instantly the moment it's submitted, and any source is likely to be at least a few hours old when used — which 24 hours are being talked about? I suspect this is an authentically tricky article to write because, even if a particular event is adopted as the lede, the objective of the article is wider than that.
- There are a huge number of sources. That is a big problem for a reviewer. Nothing has been done to try to significantly mitigate it, afaics.
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 4221918 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC).Reply
Comments by reviewer:
- Two important principles are that (1) the headline, lede, and body should all agree about what the focus of the article is, and (2) the focal event should be corroborated by two mutually independent sources.
- Atm the headline presents a hospital targeting as the focus, the lede presents 24 hours of shelling as the focus. I'm uncertain about the body, perhaps it does agree with the lede but things aren't entirely clear to me. There's definitely a strong discrepancy between the headline and lede, though.
- It looks as if there may be only one source for the focal event, if the focal event is the 24 hours of shelling described in the lede.
- I'm finding this hard to follow. The lede talks about "militants", but then the second paragraph talks about three different groups (well, four if you count the Russians), one of which are called militants but I really can't tell how any of it relates to the things said in the lede. The lede talks about the last 24 hours, but since it's a given that no article is going to get reviewed instantly the moment it's submitted, and any source is likely to be at least a few hours old when used — which 24 hours are being talked about? I suspect this is an authentically tricky article to write because, even if a particular event is adopted as the lede, the objective of the article is wider than that.
- There are a huge number of sources. That is a big problem for a reviewer. Nothing has been done to try to significantly mitigate it, afaics.
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. |
Yes please - can we rename the story.
- When viewing the article page (not this collaboration page), on the control bar at the top of the page, on the far right there should be a drop-down menu. "move" or "rename" on that menu changes the name of the article. --Pi zero (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
- Move link. --Gryllida 00:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Reply
| |
Revision 4221937 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC).Reply
- Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Newsworthiness: Not ready: Hm. See below.
- Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
Comments by reviewer:
- The lede should briefly summarize the focal event and, in the process, show that it is newsworthy — specific, relevant, and fresh. It should also agree with the headline and body about what the focal event is.
- Currently, the lede identifies an event that is nearly a week old, with no indication of any further development that would justify a claim of freshness. It's not the same event identified by the headline, and the body goes off on a tangent, describing other events. It appears to me that the actual intended focus here is not what the lede says it is, nor what the headline says it is. This is tricky, but if you can capture in a plausible lede what the actual focus here is, you may be able to make it work. Be clear and decisive in presenting in the lede what you are actually writing an article about, and make it sound specific enough to be able to show it's fresh. Not every focal event is a specific thing that happened on a specific day, sometimes a focus can be something that has happened over several days. Once you've got the actual focus described with succinct answers to five Ws and H questions, lay things out clearly in the body, change the headline to match the focus, and — hopefully — we're in business.
- The list of sources is oppressive. Anything that can be done to alleviate the problem, please do.
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 4221937 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC).Reply
- Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Newsworthiness: Not ready: Hm. See below.
- Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
Comments by reviewer:
- The lede should briefly summarize the focal event and, in the process, show that it is newsworthy — specific, relevant, and fresh. It should also agree with the headline and body about what the focal event is.
- Currently, the lede identifies an event that is nearly a week old, with no indication of any further development that would justify a claim of freshness. It's not the same event identified by the headline, and the body goes off on a tangent, describing other events. It appears to me that the actual intended focus here is not what the lede says it is, nor what the headline says it is. This is tricky, but if you can capture in a plausible lede what the actual focus here is, you may be able to make it work. Be clear and decisive in presenting in the lede what you are actually writing an article about, and make it sound specific enough to be able to show it's fresh. Not every focal event is a specific thing that happened on a specific day, sometimes a focus can be something that has happened over several days. Once you've got the actual focus described with succinct answers to five Ws and H questions, lay things out clearly in the body, change the headline to match the focus, and — hopefully — we're in business.
- The list of sources is oppressive. Anything that can be done to alleviate the problem, please do.
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 4222039 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC).Reply
- Copyright: Not ready: See below.
- Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Style: Not ready: Some clarification wanted; see below.
Comments by reviewer:
- This actually came across as much clearer, overall. I could immediately see some clarification would be needed in the lede, which I wasn't sure whether I would be able to provide as an independent reviewer (though I hoped). Unfortunately, when I moved to the preliminary copyright check (much delayed by the organizational concerns with this article), I hit a snag.
- Just from looking at the first two sources, I've readily found lengthy passages copied-and-scuffed-up from the sources. Avoid a writing technique that starts with source passages and modifies them. There's some (very compact) advice at WN:PILLARS#own. In my checking, I found that most of the second paragraph is very close to the first source (RT, June 6), likewise a prefix of the fifth paragraph, a bit over a dozen words ("Russia's foreign minister..."); while the lede is very close to the second source (TASS). I stopped at that point, mindful of the other articles clamoring for attention on the review queue.
- There's a bit of clarification needed in the lede; 270 killed within the past 48 hours according to a report on Saturday? Saturday was, more or less, 48 hours ago, so this comes across very oddly. It would work better to say specifically during what period (not relative) these deaths were reported to have occurred. The lede does somewhat come across as presenting an ongoing situation and a specific incident within that, which is good since that seems to be what the article is striving for.
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 4222039 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:00, 6 June 2016 (UTC).Reply
- Copyright: Not ready: See below.
- Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
- Style: Not ready: Some clarification wanted; see below.
Comments by reviewer:
- This actually came across as much clearer, overall. I could immediately see some clarification would be needed in the lede, which I wasn't sure whether I would be able to provide as an independent reviewer (though I hoped). Unfortunately, when I moved to the preliminary copyright check (much delayed by the organizational concerns with this article), I hit a snag.
- Just from looking at the first two sources, I've readily found lengthy passages copied-and-scuffed-up from the sources. Avoid a writing technique that starts with source passages and modifies them. There's some (very compact) advice at WN:PILLARS#own. In my checking, I found that most of the second paragraph is very close to the first source (RT, June 6), likewise a prefix of the fifth paragraph, a bit over a dozen words ("Russia's foreign minister..."); while the lede is very close to the second source (TASS). I stopped at that point, mindful of the other articles clamoring for attention on the review queue.
- There's a bit of clarification needed in the lede; 270 killed within the past 48 hours according to a report on Saturday? Saturday was, more or less, 48 hours ago, so this comes across very oddly. It would work better to say specifically during what period (not relative) these deaths were reported to have occurred. The lede does somewhat come across as presenting an ongoing situation and a specific incident within that, which is good since that seems to be what the article is striving for.
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. |
