Talk:Tensions increase as US recovers downed Chinese "spy balloon" debris

'how'

In first paragraph would suggest to add a mention of how the announcement was made, i.e. 'the secretary announcer their decision in press release / twitter / verbal speech at location X / etc'. Gryllida (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gryllida, based on the sources I got that US State Department spokesperson announced. Also fixed some minor faults. DRC-B5 (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Current status

Looks like the military scrambled some fighter jets and shot the balloon out of the air on Saturday, for example, see "US downs Chinese balloon, drawing a threat from China" from AP. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 07:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Thnx @Chaetodipus for the update. DRC-B5 (talk) 08:00, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Headline

Suggest to do something with the 'creating tensions' phrase, as the tensions probably were there for many years; perhaps 'increasing' tensions would be a more appropriate choice of words? Gryllida (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Thnx @Gryllida DRC-B5 (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4708033 [Not ready]

Revision 4708033 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:30, 6 February 2023 (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: Ordinarily, I would correct common English mistakes, especially from a non-native speaker (which I sympathise), however some points are too ambiguous to clarify without knowing the initial intent: "U.S. President Joe Biden has issued the order but had wanted the balloon downed even earlier, on that day." Does this mean Biden wanted the balloon downed on the same day he issued the order, or on the day the balloon began travelling? "He advised that the balloon must be shoot down over water for safety, said U.S. officials"—does this mean US officials advised Biden, or US officials reported what Biden said? "Blinken mentioned that the actions made" what actions? The balloons, or the trip to China? "Blinken scheduled his visit early in Beijing on Friday night, where both governments are about to talk on reinforcement communication and easing tensions between the two countries" He scheduled it on Friday? Or for Friday? Also, 'are about'? So they're still doing the talks anyway? "China, before the balloon took down, confirmed" sounds like they're stating a fact. And many other problems make the article very hard to read. It's not formatted well, either; why are we talking about what happened on FRIDAY before China's RECENT statements? Please fix grammar, style (US, not U.S.), formatting before resubmitting for review. I would also recommend, if it's easier for a Chinese native speaker, contributing to zh.wikinews.org. 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 4708033 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:30, 6 February 2023 (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: Ordinarily, I would correct common English mistakes, especially from a non-native speaker (which I sympathise), however some points are too ambiguous to clarify without knowing the initial intent: "U.S. President Joe Biden has issued the order but had wanted the balloon downed even earlier, on that day." Does this mean Biden wanted the balloon downed on the same day he issued the order, or on the day the balloon began travelling? "He advised that the balloon must be shoot down over water for safety, said U.S. officials"—does this mean US officials advised Biden, or US officials reported what Biden said? "Blinken mentioned that the actions made" what actions? The balloons, or the trip to China? "Blinken scheduled his visit early in Beijing on Friday night, where both governments are about to talk on reinforcement communication and easing tensions between the two countries" He scheduled it on Friday? Or for Friday? Also, 'are about'? So they're still doing the talks anyway? "China, before the balloon took down, confirmed" sounds like they're stating a fact. And many other problems make the article very hard to read. It's not formatted well, either; why are we talking about what happened on FRIDAY before China's RECENT statements? Please fix grammar, style (US, not U.S.), formatting before resubmitting for review. I would also recommend, if it's easier for a Chinese native speaker, contributing to zh.wikinews.org. 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.

Well @JJLiu112:, other than this any more issues are left? I'm fixing those issues right now. --DRC-B5 (talk) 12:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Uh @JJLiu112:, I understand that you are busy in your real life (probably involved in some work), but if you kindly check this article if you have time, as it is coming nearly to stale.--DRC-B5 (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Review

DRC-B5: I am probably too involved through my edits to undertake a review of this article. SVTCobra, would you happen to have the time this weekend? It won't lose freshness until Sunday. About early Sunday (UTC), I should have the time to review the satellites article. Heavy Water (talk) 04:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water: Given the lack of activity on Wikinews these days, some editors are fine with allowing reviewers to review articles they have significantly contributed to. It might be acceptable for you to review this article if another trusted editor gives you the go-ahead. @JJLiu112, SVTCobra: What are your thoughts on this? --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: Yeah, I know about that decision. But if we can avoid that and still publish... Heavy Water (talk) 23:36, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4708504 [Not ready]

Revision 4708504 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: The focal event has become stale Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The focal event has become stale, however, the story has stayed in the news. There ought to be various other events which (with new sources) can be used to save the work that went into 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 4708504 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:25, 11 February 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: The focal event has become stale Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The focal event has become stale, however, the story has stayed in the news. There ought to be various other events which (with new sources) can be used to save the work that went into 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.

@SVTCobra: I've refocused the article and added some updates. --Ixfd64 (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ixfd64:, thanks for saving my article. I am busy at my work so I can't monitor my works for now.--DRC-B5 (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: Rather than giving this a second failing review, I abandoned the review. What we need is a second source for the new focal event (equipment found). --SVTCobra 15:48, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@SVTCobra, I got https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/feb/08/downed-balloon-one-of-a-fleet-of-chinese-surveillance-devices-us-alleges as a source for current focal event. I'm busy right now. So I can't add. But this will help. DRC-B5 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

I added it DRC-B5 (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Not quite good enough. That appears to be from before the payload was examined. SVTCobra 15:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I added a source from CBS News. [1] Is that not adequate either? --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

The problems here: our article claims the US made this announcement on Friday, while the CBS article says it was Thursday; furthermore, the Guardian article does not support the focal event at all, as its focal event is the US' claim that China has a "fleet" of these balloons; when the Guardian article was written (Wednesday) the FBI was still investigating, not announcing findings. Heavy Water (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

NYT also said the same date [2]. DRC-B5 (talk) 18:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@SVTCobra, Heavy Water, DRC-B5: That was probably my bad. I must have miscalculated the day of the week while refocusing the article. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:14, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@SVTCobra, I think you must now review the page, because it will be stale on midnight of Feb 14 (UTC). DRC-B5 (talk) 02:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Is it so hard to find a secondary and free source? (hint, it's not) SVTCobra 07:26, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Through MSN great. DRC-B5 (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@SVTCobra, I would request you to check the topic again. DRC-B5 (talk) 01:46, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@SVTCobra: I've updated the article based on today's developments. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

See also [3]. -- Gryllida (talk) 03:35, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Gryllida: I feel this may not be necessary as the article is more about the US response. However, I could probably put it in somewhere if you feel it should be included. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I only copyedited the first few paragraphs, and with the refocusing, those have changed so drastically I might as well have not been involved. Ixfd64, please double-check all the sources are still used (policy prohibits the listing of unused sources) before I start a review. Heavy Water (talk) 19:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water: I removed the Reuters source as it didn't seem to contain any information not covered by other articles. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:25, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: What exactly is the focal event here? The recovery of the debris on Monday or the discovery of surveillance equipment last Thursday? The recovery of the debris was in the first sentence, but there is only one source for that. Heavy Water (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water: I'm pretty sure it's the former. The discovery of surveillance equipment in the wreckage, although more notable, is getting stale as that happened six days ago. --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Well, we need a second source from Monday, then (the at least two sources rule is specific to the focal event). Heavy Water (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water: I've added a second source. --Ixfd64 (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: It appears you used the Pentagon press conference video in the PBS source for the fourth paragraph. Could you add a "Notes" section to this talk page explaining briefly how you obtained the information? I've verified it, but this is necessary as it's technically a {{broadcast report}}. Heavy Water (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water: Pinging DRC-B5 as he was the one that added this information. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water: On a side note, I did find a transcript of the video. Would it make sense to use that as a source instead? --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, that'd be much easier, you wouldn't have to provide notes. Heavy Water (talk) 04:23, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Oh my goodness, I can't access the website. It looks like I can't view the website as I'm not a US citizen. M:DRC (talk) 04:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

That's odd. Ixfd did add the source, actually. Heavy Water (talk) 04:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Source updated. --Ixfd64 (talk) 04:27, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4709801 [Passed]

Revision 4709801 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Whew, that was a long one! Multiple refocusings and nearly two weeks of editing by literally every active Wikinewsie to get this published. But it's worth it. Do remember, Ixfd64 and DRC-B5: "that" is an unnecessary word, get quotes and dates correct, and remember the four-word rule (more than four words of an article should not be identical to those in a source). This was an excellent effort, of which I hope to continue seeing from both of you. 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 4709801 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 06:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Whew, that was a long one! Multiple refocusings and nearly two weeks of editing by literally every active Wikinewsie to get this published. But it's worth it. Do remember, Ixfd64 and DRC-B5: "that" is an unnecessary word, get quotes and dates correct, and remember the four-word rule (more than four words of an article should not be identical to those in a source). This was an excellent effort, of which I hope to continue seeing from both of you. 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.

Awesome, and thank you for taking all that time to review the article. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:19, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

No problem! --Heavy Water (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Paywall

FYI: Bloomberg is a paywalled source disallowed per WN:PAYWALL. @Heavy Water:, please consider this in future. JJLiu112 (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't get a paywall because the URL is the MSN version. Heavy Water (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

In that case, this would be the proper formatting, where 'pub' is the site it's hosted on. JJLiu112 (talk) 00:21, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at it, JJLiu112, Heavy Water! Gryllida (talk) 02:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)