Talk:Seventh Guantanamo Prosecutor resigns over ethical issues

Sources?

sources are still not fixed. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 14:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there any way you could see your way to clear to be more specific about your concern? It has been six months or more since I worked on wikinews, and I have only worked on a handful. I am honestely mystified by your cryptic notes. Geo Swan (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I find these two edits totally unhelpful. [1] [2]

Please make a good faith attempt to explain what is wrong. Please place that explanation here on the talk page. Please don't leave cryptic notes in the edit summary. Edit summaries are poor place in which to conduct a discussion.

In particular, someone arbitrarily removed a bunch of sources. Aren't they under an obligation to explain why? Additionally, whoever asserted the sources needed formatting didn't say what formatting changes were needed.

Candidly, Geo Swan (talk) 21:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikinews does not link to nonexistent pages, the author parameter is not wikilinked and the template handles other wikilinking. A cursory inspection of other articles such as the leads would make this apparent. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 21:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever read anything about "human factors". I suggest what you claim is obvious falls into the class of things that are only obvious to those who already understand them. I am sorry, but I am very disappointed you didn't make the effort to leave your explanation earlier. Geo Swan (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

User:DragonFire1024 arbitrarily removed a bunch of sources. I think it is really their responsibility to explain themselves. But, If you can guess at why, I would be grateful if you could explain. Geo Swan (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I removed no sources. I moved and formatted them correctly. They were then rearranged to the state they were in previously. Please see the style guide for the correct fomatting. Also see the clickable links just below the edit summary box. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 22:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

All sources should also be arranged from newest to oldest. Gopher65_talk 06:45, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Review

Revision 699568 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Is 21 sources really necessary? You have 7 from the last few days alone - are they all contributing something unique or are they just linked because they are the same topic. I realize that someone the historic ones have a purpose NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Source dates should be in the format of "September 25, 2008" for example. Needs categories. Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 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 699568 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Is 21 sources really necessary? You have 7 from the last few days alone - are they all contributing something unique or are they just linked because they are the same topic. I realize that someone the historic ones have a purpose NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: Source dates should be in the format of "September 25, 2008" for example. Needs categories. Comments by reviewer: --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 21:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC) 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.

A single "20th" to "20" should have been corrected by the reviewer, not given as cause to fail. This is what collaborative effort means. I agree that 21 sources seems far too many, if the story can be told with less (much of the problem seems to be providing sources to back up facts about previous prosecutors cases -- we don't have a firm policy on that, should you need to provide sources for facts already verified on WP,e tc) Sherurcij 22:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I changed about half a dozen dates in the sources here.

I added a couple of categories.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

@Sherurcij - If you actually LOOKED at the article, I didn't fail it because of "20th" to "20" because I don't care about that (And didn't even notice). I cared about the half the sources that were in the format of YYYY-MM-DD. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

@GeoSwan - If you feel that this article needs all 21 sources - then I'm fine with that. Just when I see so many I just get curious if someone has been linking to any and every article related, regardless of if they provide anything new or not. --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 22:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know how much verification is generally required here on wikinews. If the amount of verifying sources is related to how controversial the topic is, maybe it would be best to leave them all in.

I honestly don't know how much provision is made for readers who are interested in further reading on the topic(s) of the article.

I spent over an hour going through the wikipedia articles on the six earlier individuals to resign, verifying the urls were still live, and changing them from the wikipedia {{cite}} format to the {{source}} format. But this should count for nothing if there is a policy problem with them.

Is there a policy problem with them?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The only concern here is that the sources are useful & unique. If you tell me there is one factoid from every source - I'm happy. Occasionally we have people that believe the sources should contact every link to a topic they can find - even though many of these sources don't bring any new facts to the table. That is all I'm trying to prevent. Does that make sense? --ShakataGaNai ^{^_^} 23:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Review 2

Revision 699599 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: FYI - {{ready}} redirects to {{review}} so it doesn't matter which you use. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC) 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 699599 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: FYI - {{ready}} redirects to {{review}} so it doesn't matter which you use. --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC) 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.