Talk:Pirates capture Saudi oil tanker

Note about original reporting

I estimated 120 million by taking the current crude oil price of slightly over $58, multiplied by 2 million and rounded up. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I reduced it to 100 million (after first increasing it to 200M due to bad math). My reason is that the OPEC basket price (which reflects Saudi crude better than the West-Texas price on NYMEX) is below $50/barrel. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Publish?

Do you think it's ready to publish yet? It has gone through a few revisions, has a few reliable sources and looks good. All it needs is the external review... The Flying Spaghetti Monster (talk) 22:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we need to wait for an uninvolved user to stop by and decide it can be published. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Review

Revision ID Revision ID of this article has been reviewed by Durova (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Short but sweet, Durova (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC) The ID 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 ID Revision ID of this article has been reviewed by Durova (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Short but sweet, Durova (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC) The ID 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.

POV issues

One line of the story reads, "The area off the east coast of Africa has a serious piracy problem." However, this is clearly a value judgment. Not everybody would consider all the piracy a problem. (I'd say that the piracy is indeed a problem, but it could be argued from a radical environmentalist that the piracy's disruption of oil shipping is a good thing.)

Maybe a better way to phrase it would be to say that "The area off the east coast of Africa has experienced a large amount of piracy over the past several years." Cielomobile (talk) 00:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed the wording to comply with WN:NPOV, though I didn't go with your exact wording. See if you find it satisfactory. --SVTCobra 01:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. You might consider adding in some sort of temporal qualifier like "lately", but it's not a big deal. Cielomobile (talk) 16:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

pic?

a ship similar to the one that was sunk? the lead story has a pic of the real ship maybe that can go in the article as well just throwing it out there. --71.254.102.66 01:38, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well it wasn't sunk. But yes, I get your point. However, the pictures of the actual ship were not available when this article was written. They will be in the follow-up articles. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)