Talk:Petition pressures City of Edinburgh Council to review clause affecting live music scene

Reporters' notes

Martina Cannon (The Mean Reds) - "Having run open mic's for the past 2 years and in a band for the past year, I've started to get affected more and more. First of all, while running my open mic at the Parlour in Duke st, there was a persistent complainer and had been for about 7 years prior. He lived 2 doors up on the top floor, which is some distance from the pub, but due to the legislation, the complaint was logged and eventually, the night was shut down. It was a shame because it had built up some momentum over the months it had been running, and it then left a big empty gap, causing the pub to suffer losses and of course the small amount I got paid for hosting the night This pub will be closing in a few weeks. I've just played a couple of nights in the Rose and Crown, and the most recent one, on Friday when 2 people from the council turned up saying that there had been a complaint and as a result of that, my night that was planned for tomorrow is now to be completely acoustic. I've decided to pass it on to someone else. I now run a night in Leith, and a pub called the Pond, and so far there has been 1 complaint, but no follow up. It's affected a few musicians I know, and is getting more frequent. This won't do our tourism any good either." 101.170.213.83 (talk) 01:43, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Dear Wikinews Reviewers,

This article is a collaborative piece that Wikinews writers from the University of Wollongong wrote together. We each gathered our own sources, emailing and interviewing different individuals. The sources which include interviews and email conversations have now been sent to scoop@wikinewsie.org with an attached link to a Google Document where you will find it all. If you have any difficulties, let me know, and I'll paste the link to the Google Document here. Thank you. MusicrocksUOW (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

It looks like it contains personal information that would be best not broadcast here (such as phone numbers). That's part of the function of scoop, to allow such things to be kept private.

I think, unless some unforeseen problem were to come up on closer scrutiny, under these circumstances it should be okay that you're using a "google document" (though I'd never heard of such a thing before). It would be quite unsuitable for sensitive information (you're handing everything on a platter to both Google and the NSA), it's less authenticating than actually forwarding the emails involved, and I'd generally encourage actually sending things to scoop and especially actually forwarding emails to scoop; but I do understand why it was chosen and, as I say, under the circumstances. --Pi zero (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Pi Zero - I can resend the sources through a word document, and get rid of the Google Document. I understand what you mean by the privacy, so I apologise for making this mistake, and will get the word document to you via Scoop now. =) Thank you. MusicrocksUOW (talk) 05:10, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Pi Zero, the word document has been sent through to scoop@wikinewsie.org - and the Google Document is now erased for privacy. Thank you. MusicrocksUOW (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Fortunately, I had stashed some form of the google-document on my laptop. The "word" form, which does appear to have arrived on scoop, I've been entirely unable to access in any useful way. Whether I've got everything I need still remains to be seen; I've so far managed to verify a significant part of the article, but I'm worried that there will be parts left over when I've finished with all the documentation I have available to me. --Pi zero (talk) 00:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

I may get to it thus afternoon my time. The Word doc opens fine in LibreOffice Writer if you want to get to it before me. :) --RockerballAustralia contribs 00:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

@RockerballAustralia: I've been working on this all day, and I've got somewhere between 60% and 80% of it done already; I may try LibreOffice and see if that helps (though it would only help if the info in that version is more than was in the earlier version). And if I can't finish it all tonight (my time) one way or another, I'll leave notes on the talk page here saying which parts I have and haven't done. --Pi zero (talk) 01:32, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Documentation

Documentation for OR should be as thorough as possible; aim high, not just for "enough". For example, a quote put on the talk page isn't adequate; you should explain how you gathered material — when, where, how — emails should be forwarded to scoop (scoop at wikinewsie dot org), commonly audios are provided either on Commons or to scoop, it's even been known to provide scans of handwritten notes. And so on. --Pi zero (talk) 10:58, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Also note that materials placed here by an IP have no verification value at all, since we have no way of knowing who put them here. --Pi zero (talk) 10:59, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Pi Zero. Thank you for letting us know. Its a collaboration piece, so we're going to put all the interviews into a Google document and send it to scoop. We'll add the above into the document as well. Quick question. Do we include our email conversations in the document too, or just the interviews? MusicrocksUOW (talk) 11:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Email conversations are relevant documentation. --Pi zero (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok cool =) Thank you. MusicrocksUOW (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Preliminary review

I've read through this article and it's definitely one of the longest we've had in a while. I checked that sources cited in the article (e.g the phone interview) were in the documentation provided. They were as far as I could tell.

I'm not able to do a complete review right now but I'll leave a few comments here.

Some of the paragraphs appear as though they could be broken up - at least in two. Some of these paragraphs have an info then quote setup. Create a new paragraph with the quote. There are also some misplaced punctuation marks. These will need to be cleaned up before a reviewer hits publish.

I may end up doing this review tonight when I have more time but that's all from me for now. --RockerballAustralia contribs 04:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3604406 [Not ready]

Revision 3604406 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC). 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: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede needs to provide sharp focus. What is this article presenting? Did Wikinews interview some people, or something like that? Say so. Succinctly; the current first paragraph tends to over-length, over-detail, though it doesn't convey what specifically characterizes this article. 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 3604406 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC). 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: See below. Comments by reviewer: The lede needs to provide sharp focus. What is this article presenting? Did Wikinews interview some people, or something like that? Say so. Succinctly; the current first paragraph tends to over-length, over-detail, though it doesn't convey what specifically characterizes this article. 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.

It's possible I may do some further prelim-review on this myself, and I surely encourage RockerballAustralia to pitch in! — anything I do I'll try to note here on the talk page so efforts can be cumulative. But I wanted to bring the sharpness-of-lede-focus issue to the fore immediately, because that's quite important in how the whole thing turns out. --Pi zero (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3613310 [Not ready]

Revision 3613310 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:42, 22 June 2015 (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: Okay. I've spent today reviewing this; there's been plenty to do, on which please see the history of edits. I applaud some aspects of the documentation, but as best I could tell there appeared to be some serious gaps. Background information missing, and it looks like there were attachments on some of the emails that were drawn on but, as best I could tell, not provided to scoop. Forwarding emails to scoop is preferable to compiling a summary document. It's possible some of the problems were due to technical problems on my end; RockerballAustralia, if you can access the most recent thing sent to scoop and it contains the things I'm going to list below, you can always just revert my not-ready of the article, putting it back on the review queue, and review it. I went so far as to review the emails forwarded to scoop by Brian, some of which helped verify some background information; and in particular he had recommended the earlier Wikinews article. I found some more background information in that article and in its sources — that's clearly beyond the pale of what a reviewer can reasonably be asked to do, but without bounds for what a reviewer might safely do if they choose. I chose, because this really seems it could be quite a worthy piece if we can get it through. Unfortunately, after all my efforts I was left with quite a lot I couldn't verify. If some of this is in the material I looked at and I missed it, you'd have to tell me where to look. I suspect most of it simply wasn't there (e.g. I string-searched for direct quotes). Para 3, couldn't verify who can order a venue to do this ("individuals from the licensing board, or police"). I remember seeing something like this somewhere, but I don't see it amongst current sources; suspect it's in the regulations, which I've probably been exposed to at some point but they'd certainly need to be provided here. Para 5 (starts "On November 17"), couldn't verify sentence 3 of 4 (starts "Several ideas"). From para 6 sentence 3 (starts "In a document") through the end of para 10 (ends "permanent licensed premises."), the only thing I successfully verified was the sentence about tenement housing (para 9 sentence 3). Para 11, couldn't verify "that has been in operation for over 50 years", nor the last two sentences (starting with "The Picture House was host"). Para 12 (starts "The council is attempting"), couldn't verify this, though in this case I have a sense I may have seen it earlier and then lost it again; at any rate, I couldn't find it when I needed it. Para 19(?) (starts "A full review made by"), the first sentence looks like it needs a careful going over for accuracy. Exactly what is it that has to be reviewed every three years? Btw, what means was used to capture the transcript of the phone interview? That's information that should be provided. 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 3613310 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:42, 22 June 2015 (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: Okay. I've spent today reviewing this; there's been plenty to do, on which please see the history of edits. I applaud some aspects of the documentation, but as best I could tell there appeared to be some serious gaps. Background information missing, and it looks like there were attachments on some of the emails that were drawn on but, as best I could tell, not provided to scoop. Forwarding emails to scoop is preferable to compiling a summary document. It's possible some of the problems were due to technical problems on my end; RockerballAustralia, if you can access the most recent thing sent to scoop and it contains the things I'm going to list below, you can always just revert my not-ready of the article, putting it back on the review queue, and review it. I went so far as to review the emails forwarded to scoop by Brian, some of which helped verify some background information; and in particular he had recommended the earlier Wikinews article. I found some more background information in that article and in its sources — that's clearly beyond the pale of what a reviewer can reasonably be asked to do, but without bounds for what a reviewer might safely do if they choose. I chose, because this really seems it could be quite a worthy piece if we can get it through. Unfortunately, after all my efforts I was left with quite a lot I couldn't verify. If some of this is in the material I looked at and I missed it, you'd have to tell me where to look. I suspect most of it simply wasn't there (e.g. I string-searched for direct quotes). Para 3, couldn't verify who can order a venue to do this ("individuals from the licensing board, or police"). I remember seeing something like this somewhere, but I don't see it amongst current sources; suspect it's in the regulations, which I've probably been exposed to at some point but they'd certainly need to be provided here. Para 5 (starts "On November 17"), couldn't verify sentence 3 of 4 (starts "Several ideas"). From para 6 sentence 3 (starts "In a document") through the end of para 10 (ends "permanent licensed premises."), the only thing I successfully verified was the sentence about tenement housing (para 9 sentence 3). Para 11, couldn't verify "that has been in operation for over 50 years", nor the last two sentences (starting with "The Picture House was host"). Para 12 (starts "The council is attempting"), couldn't verify this, though in this case I have a sense I may have seen it earlier and then lost it again; at any rate, I couldn't find it when I needed it. Para 19(?) (starts "A full review made by"), the first sentence looks like it needs a careful going over for accuracy. Exactly what is it that has to be reviewed every three years? Btw, what means was used to capture the transcript of the phone interview? That's information that should be provided. 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.

Peripheral remark: I'm hoping this article might come out very well indeed, so I'm trying to put a good polish on it as I go along. --Pi zero (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Pi Zero, so far I have looked at paragraph three. I have added the Licensing (Scotland) Act 2005 to the Sources Section of the article. I also checked over my emails with the Phoenix Bar owner, Ms Roberts, and she said in her answers that it was the LSO's (Licensing Standards Officer). You will find this in her answer for Question Eight of the interview. With the Licensing Act and this interview it should then verify that it is the Licensing Standards Officer since they are a part of the licensing board. I will add this into the article now. =) MusicrocksUOW (talk) 06:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Pi Zero - the phone interview was recorded and then typed out by the writer into a transcript. MusicrocksUOW (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pi zero,

I have sent the relevant sources for the info in paragraphs 6-10. I'm currently working on 11 and 12, waiting on an email from someone as I believe the website that was used has since been deleted. Will update as soon as I have the correct info.

Uowmlb (talk) 10:42, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Pi Zero, I looked over paragraph 19, fact checked, and rewrote it. MusicrocksUOW (talk) 03:32, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Pi Zero, just letting you know, all the emails have been forwarded to Scoop. =) MusicrocksUOW (talk) 05:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

@MusicrocksUOW: Don't forget to resubmit the article when you believe it's ready. --Pi zero (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Pi zero: No worries, will do. We're nearly ready to put it back up for review. =) All the emails have been forwarded to Scoop too. MusicrocksUOW (talk) 11:44, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Pi zero: the article is now back up for review. =) MusicrocksUOW (talk) 23:49, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Cool. (Though by this time of evening I rarely have enough energy for serious review.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

(I should have checked the emails to scoop sooner, this time around. It just failed to occur to me there might be a problem.)

@MusicrocksUOW: Of the latest batch of emails to scoop, one of them did have an attachment, but the one whose attachments were supposed to verify paragraphs 6–10 (i.e., most of what's needed) arrived with, afaict, no attachments.

(I'd only verified a few things when I discovered this — paragraphs 3 and 5, and the sentence that mentions AC/DC. I was worried about the sentence just after AC/DC, about opening in 2008, and some other bits, but if one has just one or two things left on the table one can try really hard to dig them up, and if it doesn't work those few small things could be cut to avoid holding up publication. That's secondary to a five-paragraph block, though.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Pi zero: Ok cool, I've just messaged the writer who has that attachment and as soon as I hear from them I'll get it sent through again. =) I definitely agree with the sentence just after AC/DC. I have just put another link in the sources section which should verify the 2008 part, but if it doesn't clear that sentence, you can definitely cut it. MusicrocksUOW (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey @Pi zero: The two documents that verify paragraphs 6-10 have now been sent to Scoop. =) MusicrocksUOW (talk) 02:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

They appear to have arrived at scoop, too. --Pi zero (talk) 04:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3626469 [Passed]

Revision 3626469 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I didn't find the January meeting of the working group in the sources, and that paragraph got cut. Note, under our archiving policy, substantive changes to a published article can only be made during the first 24 hours after publication; so if an attempt were to be undertaken to source and restore that material, it'd have to be done pretty fast (taking into account that the reporters and this reviewer are pretty nearly on opposite sides of the globe so it's hard for any back-and-forth exchange to take less than half a day). This last material (which was paragraphs 6–10, now paragraphs 6–9 with the January meeting cut) was tricky to review; see edit history. One relatively large cut (second to last edit, about variable factors in noise) was due to material that came out as analysis; possibly it was meant as summary, but it wasn't attributed and, in any case, summary can be quite problematic for neutrality in the Wikinews sense. 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 3626469 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I didn't find the January meeting of the working group in the sources, and that paragraph got cut. Note, under our archiving policy, substantive changes to a published article can only be made during the first 24 hours after publication; so if an attempt were to be undertaken to source and restore that material, it'd have to be done pretty fast (taking into account that the reporters and this reviewer are pretty nearly on opposite sides of the globe so it's hard for any back-and-forth exchange to take less than half a day). This last material (which was paragraphs 6–10, now paragraphs 6–9 with the January meeting cut) was tricky to review; see edit history. One relatively large cut (second to last edit, about variable factors in noise) was due to material that came out as analysis; possibly it was meant as summary, but it wasn't attributed and, in any case, summary can be quite problematic for neutrality in the Wikinews sense. 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.

Hey @Pi zero: thank you for reviewing the article =) MusicrocksUOW (talk) 09:43, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

@MusicrocksUOW: Thanks to all of you who contributed to writing it. A big OR piece like this is a hefty undertaking all around, and is worth it; I certainly feel a lot of satisfaction in the opportunity to provide my part in it, and methinks you all should too. --Pi zero (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

• Promoted to FA. --Bddpaux (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)