Talk:Rochester Hills, Michigan water park shooting leaves nine people wounded, suspect dead

Pre-Review

If by any chance someone gets time to pre-review much appreciated, thanks. BigKrow (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

By the way Wikinews should make a pre-review tag i.e, review. Thank you. BigKrow (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright, you busy? BigKrow (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

We have {{pre-review}} already. Are you referring to a template that specifically requests a pre-review? If so, I can see where that might be useful, along with an internal category to help track all articles requesting a pre-review. I'd like to see how consensus develops around the pre-review process before further developing more templates and internal categories around it. The latest discussion about it is here: Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Feedback_on_Pre-Review_process. Feel free to leave any feedback and ideas (including this one) there! —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 16:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Actually, I think this is not a terrible idea. Maybe not a template, just a category though. It would help people prioritize which authors want a pre-review most and find it most useful. @BigKrow, Michael.C.Wright: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Development

I'm going to leave as developing instead of review due to the case undergoing further information. BigKrow (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I will come back later and see what more I can help with, thanks. BigKrow (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Flooding

Sorry again for flooding RC, it's the only way really I can go by writing in chunks, apologies. BigKrow (talk) 20:53, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

review.

i just submitted it, feedback appreciated! Thanks. BigKrow (talk) 05:53, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Cromium BigKrow (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

IMG

Might need cleaning up for the caption. BigKrow (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Shooters identity

I removed the shooter's identity for a number of reasons, but mainly to avoid inadvertently glorifying them — i.e., to treat them as persona non grata. I also think it's more constructive to instead focus on the victims and the community impact. Removing the name may help protect the shooter's family who may be innocent. And finally, not naming them helps protects us against misinformation, mistakes, etc (granted, attribution does the same).

However, I can't readily find where this has ever been discussed before at en.wn, so if you disagree with me, feel free to undo my changes. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 16:45, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I actually would like to do this as well, but “I dont want to glorify it” isn’t really neutral. Essentially, its saying “I dont like what this person did and I dont want people to know their name to avoid giving recognition”. While I and virtually everyone would agree this is wrong, I still think censoring a name to avoid glorifying something isn’t neutral. @Michael.C.Wright: Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 19:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Pre-review

Status:    Not ready

Version evaluated: 4786930

• Copyright: Passed
• Newsworthiness: Passed
• Verifiability: Not ready: See notes below
• NPOV: Passed
• Style: Not ready: The headline should be changed. See below.

Notes for author(s):

• Although Earwig evaluated our copy as 'unlikely' a violation, I think the structure is very close at times to both sources, especially the paragraph regarding the family. I think that paragraph could be restructured to create more distance from the AP article. MLive's coverage of the family also comes from the AP, so we only have one independent source for that entire paragraph. MLive reports the 4-year-old was wounded in the leg and attributes that to the AP. The AP article sourced here does not support that. If there is another source reporting on the family independently of the AP, it might help to include that source (and even replace MLive with it entirely if possible).

• Since we have time before the event is stale and also the review queue is currently pretty long, I think the last paragraph could be structurally reworked and possibly better-sourced before being published.

• I removed a statement for which I didn't find support and I don't know if it was very helpful to the reader even if it was supported.[1]

• Remember to always use {{image}} to give creators credit in images, maps, etc.

• The headline contains the number '9.' We spell numbers below 20 per the style guide. Headlines should also be in active voice.

Notes for reviewer:

• Regarding the notes above; I think we'd be in a better position with two completely independent sources. I know we can have a single source for a given statement as long as both sources support the focal event, which is the case here. But the paragraph essentially contains multiple statements of fact, though it is attributed to the AP. In this case, is that enough?

• I also think the article would be better with more distance in structure from both sources. Given we have time to correct that before the event goes stale, I am not recommending it be published at this time.

• The headline should be changed to comply with WN:Style and given the article will (hopefully) be edited soon, I've left the headline to be changed by the original author.

---

This is a pre-review only and is not part of the official review process. A pre-review is meant to help the article author or authors improve the article and increase the likelihood of getting published. This pre-review was not done by a reviewer and represents a recommendation that can be heeded or ignored.

—Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 18:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright, any chance at publication? BigKrow (talk) 19:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd say the growing review queue does not bode well. I hope this doesn't discourage you from continuing to generate new content! Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with your passing this for copyright. The earwig is not a be all end all. There is way too much copying going on here. @BigKrow@Michael.C.Wright Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 17:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Review of revision 4787816 [Not ready]

Revision 4787816 of this article has been reviewed by Cromium (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The last two paragraphs in this article are very close to several sentences in the 3rd-6th paragraphs of the MLive 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 4787816 of this article has been reviewed by Cromium (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:09, 22 June 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The last two paragraphs in this article are very close to several sentences in the 3rd-6th paragraphs of the MLive 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.

@Cromium:, any better now? Thanks. BigKrow (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Stale

Is this stale? BigKrow (talk) 23:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is now. It could still be Gatwicked if there is even one new article on the event to refocus the article. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)