Talk:Police warn new drone owners to obey law after disruption at UK's Gatwick Airport

At the time of this comment (22:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)) the story is still happening. Information may, therefore, become outdated while I am typing. Sorry for this, Qwerty number1 (talk)

Update?

Since this story is happening now it is rather hars.for me.to keep this updated. Any tips?Qwerty number1 (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Breaking

Pretty sure this is breaking news, since it is going on right 'NOW'! Qwerty number1 (talk) 23:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

@Qwerty number1: Yes, "breaking" means "there could be updates at any moment". --Pi zero (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Good.Qwerty number1 (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Attribution

It is my opinion that the paragraph containing all the logical analysis, speculation and conclusions about how the drones are being operated should be attributed in-text[1]. ("Professor Smartness of Very Neat University says that most drones can fly for roughly half an hour. Since the disruption has been kept up for several hours, it is safe to say that there is more than one drone involved. One could swap the battery packs round, so the drones could get back into the air quickly. However, the packs take rather long to recharge, so it would take an awful lot of packs and effort to keep this up.") Which source or sources is this information from? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that paragraph is analysis and therefore cannot be asserted as fact in Wikinews's own voice, but instead must be attributed. The paragraph before that, about how to stop drones, also needs attribution. Probably also the paragraph after it, about the range of drones. --Pi zero (talk) 16:59, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24, Pi zero: is this better? Qwerty number1 (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

A little. I observe that the Guardian says all of this in its own voice rather than quoting an individual expert or experts. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

New developments

"Gatwick airport reopens after airport disruption," the title of one BBC source, is what we'd call a new development. That means the article would have to be reworked around a new focal event. It could still keep a lot of the same information and text, but the lead paragraph would have to talk about whatever this new event is, either the airport reopening or the several days of drone-related issues collectively but the airport shutting last week would no longer do.

Generally, articles get rejected as stale either after two or so days have passed (it's not a fixed time limit) or after some next step has happened in the real world. We wouldn't approve an article about "Police seek murder suspect" after the suspect has been caught and identified. We wouldn't approve "cake goes into oven" after the cake has already come out. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2018 (UTC) @Darkfrog24:

Done!Qwerty number1 (talk) 15:27, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Uh, not entirely. There are still sentences like this "Gatwick is scheduled to reopen on Friday and resume normal service by Sunday." We wouldn't say "is scheduled to" for something that has already happened (or failed to happen). I'm giving the article a quick go-through for things like that.

Since the reopening is the new focal event, we now need two sources for it, not just the one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:46, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

It's Christmas Eve, so I don't have a ton of time, but I'll see if I can do some of this stuff myself. At first I thought just the lead paragraph needed updating, but it looks like most of the paragraphs will need at least a little something. The background information about drones that you got from the Guardian can probably say, but do the authorities still think it wasn't terrorism? Has the Guardian's speculation about whether there was more than one drone been confirmed or disproven? Did the police try to shoot the drone down or did they decide not to make the attempt? I'm marking some of these places with <!--tags like this which you can see in the code--> in case anyone else wants to get them. It's Christmas and I can't promise I will.

And the more important question is this: It's a holiday in the West, and there are several other drafts in the for-review hopper. Is updating this article something you want to do with your time? At this point, at least a few of the articles in the hopper are likely to age out just because there won't be enough review-hours available to do them all. Any drafter who cleans this draft up so that it is once again ready for publication should accept in advance that they are giving reviewers one more fine article to choose from, and no more. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:55, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I got it otherwise presentable, but I'm still not clear on which day it reopened. We need another source for that. Was it Friday? If so, the reviewers might consider this article too old, but we could rework it again to be about the police finding that downed drone. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:19, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24:Ok! Pretty sure it did not stop then though. Qwerty number1 (talk) 08:22, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I do no know what "then he though" means. Are you on a phone? Sometimes phones sub in weird things. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:00, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Pretty sure my phone is stupid. Qwerty number1 (talk) 21:43, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4454624 [Passed]

Revision 4454624 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4454624 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:57, 28 December 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.