What this needs is some rearrangement, and a bit of attribution-of-analysis.
The focus should be something specific, relevant, and fresh.
What specific thing happened here, that caused a whole bunch of news outlets to publish stories about the pipeline? Often, though perhaps not in this instance (or not with these particular three sources), the focus in a case like this is some particular official making a public statement. A quick look at these three sources suggest to me that no two of them are describing any one particular official statement. I do see two statements mentioned that took place on Wednesday, but one was Iranian and one Pakistani, and they sound rather contradictory.
Whatever the focus is, it needs to be corroborated by two mutually independent sources. It's not clear to me what is corroborated by two of these sources; each of those statements on Wednesday seems to be attested by just one source, and when I look for sources saying the US wants the project canceled, I'm not entirely sure whether any of the sources say that (even the first source, which mentions US pressure, doesn't say what kind of US pressure).
Once a focus has been chosen, the headline should tell the most important thing about the focus, the lede should briefly summarize the focus by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about it (don't forget when, which is important for establishing newsworthiness), and the rest of the article spirals outward from the focus in inverted pyramid fashion. (As WN:PILLARS notes, the headline, lede, and body of the article should all have the same focus.)
As a matter of neutrality, don't present claims of fact, opinions, or analysis as fact; we can factually report that someone else said such things, as long as we attribute it and the person who said it isn't just another news agency. For example, we shouldn't state factually that the pipeline is unlikely to happen, but it's fine to say such-and-such official of such-and-such government said it's unlikely to happen.
There's always the chance of a problem further down the road, since I didn't get into source-checking here. Obviously, I'm hoping there won't be a problem there.
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.
What this needs is some rearrangement, and a bit of attribution-of-analysis.
The focus should be something specific, relevant, and fresh.
What specific thing happened here, that caused a whole bunch of news outlets to publish stories about the pipeline? Often, though perhaps not in this instance (or not with these particular three sources), the focus in a case like this is some particular official making a public statement. A quick look at these three sources suggest to me that no two of them are describing any one particular official statement. I do see two statements mentioned that took place on Wednesday, but one was Iranian and one Pakistani, and they sound rather contradictory.
Whatever the focus is, it needs to be corroborated by two mutually independent sources. It's not clear to me what is corroborated by two of these sources; each of those statements on Wednesday seems to be attested by just one source, and when I look for sources saying the US wants the project canceled, I'm not entirely sure whether any of the sources say that (even the first source, which mentions US pressure, doesn't say what kind of US pressure).
Once a focus has been chosen, the headline should tell the most important thing about the focus, the lede should briefly summarize the focus by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about it (don't forget when, which is important for establishing newsworthiness), and the rest of the article spirals outward from the focus in inverted pyramid fashion. (As WN:PILLARS notes, the headline, lede, and body of the article should all have the same focus.)
As a matter of neutrality, don't present claims of fact, opinions, or analysis as fact; we can factually report that someone else said such things, as long as we attribute it and the person who said it isn't just another news agency. For example, we shouldn't state factually that the pipeline is unlikely to happen, but it's fine to say such-and-such official of such-and-such government said it's unlikely to happen.
There's always the chance of a problem further down the road, since I didn't get into source-checking here. Obviously, I'm hoping there won't be a problem there.
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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
....if I can provide a touch of clarity here (although Pi Zero did an excellent job of doing exactly that above): The 3rd sentence is a very good jumping off point for your lede. News items where there is much ado about something can be tricky. Remember: we report on news events. So, you sometimes have to fine-tune your article to focus on an event. You can go with:"A bunch of people are saying this big project isn't going to work out.", but you have to focus on AN EVENT. Someone released a press notice on Thursday.....there's a good solid event for the lede. Then, what this guy said, that guy said and the other guy said can be reserved for later paragraphs, that serve to shore up the LARGER issue.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)Reply
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.
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.
