Talk:Terror suspects arrested in connection with bombing public bus in Israel

Review of revision 1706546 [Not ready]

Revision 1706546 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: Please read more-extensive comments NPOV: Not ready: Please read more-extensive comments Style: Not ready: Please read more-extensive comments Comments by reviewer: This is very difficult to read because it is a "rushed stream-of-consciousness" as opposed to a well-laid out news report. On that basis, it's difficult to edit in any significant way to put the story in-line with the style guide. On that, the headline is also actually trying to be the news story, by cramming an excess of detail into it. It too fails on style, simply because "Attack" should not be capitalised. NPOV-wise, "Terrorist" will persistently cause this article to fail any subsequent request for review. Hamas do not self-identify as terrorists, and the issue surrounding external third-parties classing them as such is too complex to encapsulate in a title. Lastly, linking Hamas' praise and allegedly "celebratory gunfire" is not verifiable. What is verifiable is that Al-Jazeera claim this to have occurred, no second source backs up that assertion. 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 1706546 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: Please read more-extensive comments NPOV: Not ready: Please read more-extensive comments Style: Not ready: Please read more-extensive comments Comments by reviewer: This is very difficult to read because it is a "rushed stream-of-consciousness" as opposed to a well-laid out news report. On that basis, it's difficult to edit in any significant way to put the story in-line with the style guide. On that, the headline is also actually trying to be the news story, by cramming an excess of detail into it. It too fails on style, simply because "Attack" should not be capitalised. NPOV-wise, "Terrorist" will persistently cause this article to fail any subsequent request for review. Hamas do not self-identify as terrorists, and the issue surrounding external third-parties classing them as such is too complex to encapsulate in a title. Lastly, linking Hamas' praise and allegedly "celebratory gunfire" is not verifiable. What is verifiable is that Al-Jazeera claim this to have occurred, no second source backs up that assertion. 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.

I stated in the article that Hamas did not claim responsibility for the attack. The bombing of a civilian bus is a proiri a terrorist attack. I never once said Hamas carried out a terrorist attack.

if you checked the al jazeera article it was sourced from reuters.

I added another source for the celebratory gunfire. I dont know how to change the title but if i could i would lowercase the attack and change it to bombing. In the news article I state the Israeli police and Clinton refer to it as a terrorist attack, and in all other instances I use the word bombing. Also I never claimed Hamas carried out the attack and I specifically mention they have not accepted responsibility. Eframgoldberg (talk) 16:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If someone would tell me how to change the title I will.Eframgoldberg (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

As for my style of writing, I do not see it sub par to any of the other articles written here. I was objective as possible, my grammar was fine, and I covered both sides. I reported the facts from the article and refrained from any personal opinion. Eframgoldberg (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

If you're using the vector skin, up at the top of the window to the right of the star there should be a drop-down menu. 'rename' (or 'move', but I think it's 'rename') is on that menu. --Pi zero (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

• If I took every paragraph break out of your above remarks, ran them all together in a completely unstructured manner, then I'd have a "stream of consciousness"; it is, an 'unstructured story'. Please try and make the article "look" like other articles (see WN:SG). You've put up one paragraph. The requirement is a minimum of three. When you make the article start to look like others, then you may-well see how to order and present the facts logically and the requirement to use an w:inverted pyramid style layout will make more sense.

In the interim, please understand that {{review}} isn't supposed to be used until the article is in a state that a reviewer need not make substantive changes (correct details, and otherwise become involved with the 'content' beyond copyediting). --Brian McNeil / ^talk 17:52, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It was written as three paragraphs I dont know why it got squished together, I fixed that and the other concerns. Eframgoldberg (talk) 22:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

It has a clear structure to me. What happened followed by some international reactions followed by a summary of what led up to this and where things stand. Eframgoldberg (talk) 22:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I added quotes to the word "terrorist" to emphasize the fact that Hamas does not believe themselves to be a terror group. 76.100.136.17 (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC) Previously signed comment made by Zellfaze (talk) while logged out Zellfaze (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1706595 [Not ready]

Revision 1706595 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Concerns not addressed. Style: Not ready: Concerns not addressed; the style guide explains news writing. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1706595 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:26, 21 November 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Concerns not addressed. Style: Not ready: Concerns not addressed; the style guide explains news writing. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Can someone give me specific objective reasons of what else is wrong besides my "style" of writing. Furthermore there is nothing in the way it is written which conflicts with the style guide. I would appreciate specific references as opposed to general opinions.

Review of revision 1706911 [Not ready]

Revision 1706911 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: This has improved (just to be clear). This needs a brief lede, that succinctly answers as many as possible of the basic questions about the focal news event without going into expansive details. The current first paragraph goes into too much detail for a lede. Often the reviewer can fix this by simply inserting a paragraph break after the first sentence (which I've always reckoned is gentle enough not to compromise the reviewer's independence for review), but here the essentials seem to be scattered through the whole paragraph rather than being loaded at the front. Btw, notwithstanding the SG's suggestion on lede length, in my experience it's often quite possible for a very strong lede to be significantly shorter than 50 words. The reference to possible peace talks is out of date. The last paragraph (barring the past sentence, which as mentioned is out of date) comes across as arguing for a POV. I'm not being comprehensive here, just identifying some low-hanging fruit. For example, as I've not explored the sources, I've no opinion on the celebratory gunfire issue, except to note it's certainly a point any reviewer would have to scrutinize quite carefully. Note, btw, our date format is described at WN:SG#Dates. 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 1706911 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: This has improved (just to be clear). This needs a brief lede, that succinctly answers as many as possible of the basic questions about the focal news event without going into expansive details. The current first paragraph goes into too much detail for a lede. Often the reviewer can fix this by simply inserting a paragraph break after the first sentence (which I've always reckoned is gentle enough not to compromise the reviewer's independence for review), but here the essentials seem to be scattered through the whole paragraph rather than being loaded at the front. Btw, notwithstanding the SG's suggestion on lede length, in my experience it's often quite possible for a very strong lede to be significantly shorter than 50 words. The reference to possible peace talks is out of date. The last paragraph (barring the past sentence, which as mentioned is out of date) comes across as arguing for a POV. I'm not being comprehensive here, just identifying some low-hanging fruit. For example, as I've not explored the sources, I've no opinion on the celebratory gunfire issue, except to note it's certainly a point any reviewer would have to scrutinize quite carefully. Note, btw, our date format is described at WN:SG#Dates. 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.

If someone else wishes to "fix" this article they are welcome to. I feel completely frustrated in my attempts to introduce some balance into the news stories. For the current conflict there are 6 covering events in Gaza, and 0 covering events in Israel. I am disappointed to see this become a soapbox for the Palestinian cause under the guise of neutral and bias free reporting. I am not talking as much about the content of the articles themselves, but the lack of articles covering the conflict in Israel. I have been supporting Wikipedia and its projects since at least 2005 and will not be donating any more money to what I perceive as a statistical bias in the articles. I am sure that if this was not my first time trying to write an article I would have been more successful but I do not have the time to dedicate each day to take it upon myself to make sure news in Israel is being covered. Furthermore articles posted such as this one "http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Hamas_claims_Israeli_jet_shoot-down;_report_of_Israeli_soldiers_captured?dpl_id=591045" falls claim to the same criticisms which was preventing my article from being published those being lack of NPOV, unreliable sources, as this story turned out to be false, as well as poorly written with incomplete sentences and tense changes. Eframgoldberg (talk) 01:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

• News-writing is, often, nowhere near as-easy as people think. It's a completely different style of writing to that found on Wikipedia; or, in fact, to that most people will casually employ. Skill at it only comes with practice.

It does seem most unreasonably unfair to resort to a form of "blackmail" to try and get your contributions published without compliance with the style and content guides. Donations are what keeps all the WMF projects running, but the vast majority of funds cover Wikipedia; my own donation to the WMF easily covers one month's worth of what English Wikinews costs the WMF. So, unless you're arguing that Wikipedia is equally biased as you assert Wikinews is, threatening to withold your donation does other projects more harm.

Lastly, I object to Wikinews being referred to as "a soapbox for the views of <insert name of group or organisation I dislike>". Doesn't work like that. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 01:17, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

C/E

It needs a lot more c/e. I have done all that I can for tonight. I have to sleep because despite it being Thanksgiving tomorrow, I still have to work in the early AM. The article is severely outdated and the events in it are different from what the sources say now...aside from the work I have done on it. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 01:53, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

C/E and trying to clarify ambiguous wording

I completed a couple of revisions, restructuring a couple of elements. I tried to clarify some of the wording such as the sources of reports, the bus driver's suspicion, and structural ambiguity of some of the quotes. I would appreciate it if the bus driver's lack of suspicion were made clearer, as the wording is slightly confusing.--Brylie Oxley (talk) 23:29, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1708503 [Passed]

Revision 1708503 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:56, 23 November 2012 (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 1708503 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:56, 23 November 2012 (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.