Talk:PBS show asserts greenhouse gases, atmospheric pollutants dimming future

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Since i do not see any other stories on this issue(likly one of the single most important issue we will face as humans during this century) I assume you are refering to this.

"News stories focus on a single current event or phenomenon. (If developments to an on-going event or issue occur, start a new story, don't edit an old one.)"

I have to admit this focus of yours puzzles me it does not allow for ongoing stories or any knd of investigative work. I belive these have been fairly important to the "news" in the past. Just because newspaper and television have just about ended this practice does not mean it is invalid as news. You can not possible belive that Global Warming and Global Dimming are not News worthy. Or that they should not be reported on untill some major disruptive event happens as a result of these forces. I would say this story focuses on a single current Phenomenon.

Be that as it is, i have hooked this story to the broadcast of the PBS show nova. It was a recent event that is news worthy. This show discusses many little known and discussed reasearch projects by scientist around the world. my research shows that the puplictaion of this material in a popular forum is unique in the United states. You may not see that as a event but it is obvious that scientists in the field do see it as one.

To verify and strengthen the information presented and provide additional sources for readers i have linked it to many sites on the web that directly discus the issue.

Or maybe you just wanted my signiture I don't really know but here it is Isles 19:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Headline had no…[edit]

… verb. That was the first problem with this story.

Now the headline issue is addressed, the story is about "global dimming", the phenomena of an observed reduction (about 1-2% per decade since ~1960) of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth. Karen 23:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Besides the "green house" mistake (should be "greenhouse"), I'm thinking a better title might be:
PBS show asserts greenhouse gasses, atmospheric pollutants dimming future
Opinions? Karen 03:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the same reasons the headline was changed to PBS report claims greenhouse gases, atmospheric pollutants dimming future (to attribute the reporting to make NPOV), I'm changing it to my suggested headline. Maybe there will be more discussion on headlines before people just change them, next time. Karen 22:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problems with this story[edit]

DragonFire1024 will eventually post reasons here for tagging the story, hopefully before Earth Day. He's correct in tagging this story for editorial cleanup, however the story (at least the topic) clearly is news. The story as currently written does not sound like news - it sounds more like an educational awareness public service announcement. I'd suggest that the work put into it be salvaged by editing it into more of a news story. Don't let this sit without making edits. Karen 21:17, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oops...thought I had removed the notnews tag. So i just did :) Jason Safoutin 21:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, I gave it a quick once-over. It really needs a lot of help. Thanks for removing the not-news tag. I'll get back to this story in a few hours. It really needs the attention of the original author. I'll leave a note on the talk page. Karen 21:35, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now it's gotten a twice-over, still needs a lot of work. I'll be back again, later. Until then, have at it! Karen 00:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Third major edit - could use another editor's input. Karen 02:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Rewrite and re-rewrite[edit]

Here is rewrite to the story. I belive it is in more of a news form. It would be nice if the story was updated to todays news instead of yesterdays or whenevre. I doupt i will be going through this process in the future. I am much more interested in well sourced and verfiable information that is important to a large amount of the worlds population and is presented in a readable form then I am in sounding like a real news organisation. Isles 14:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You certainly did well in the "well sourced and verifiable (I spelled it right.) information that is important to a large amount of the worlds population" department. The "sounding like a real news organization" part is mostly copy-edit (Like returning "CO2" back to "CO2" and re-adding the link, and the whole bit about "Earth" being a proper noun), but there are some larger editorial decisions that sometimes don't promote stories that don't make the traditional media.
Personally, I'd rather see Wikinews become a source of shared news, while still providing contributors who can make your story sound more professional. The niche that Wikinews holds right now is somewhere between blog and commercial news outlet - a good place to be to promote the sharing of stories like yours. Karen 21:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you think it's "well sourced and verifiable" enough to publish, just add {{publish}} somewhere in the story. The editorial cleaning flag was removed and other contributors have made edits, so there may not be any more objections. Karen 22:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC) Oh, never mind - seems someone published it. Congratulations! Karen 22:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category - Arctic[edit]

Would like to add the [[Category:Arctic]] category to a number of arctic related news articles to begin a wikinews Arctic portal to complement and support the Wikipedia Arctic portal and wikiproject. Kind Regards [[User:SriMesh|SriMesh]] | [[User talk:SriMesh|<small>talk</small>]] (talk) 01:55, 25 August 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]