Talk:Texas continues to suffer record-breaking drought

Original reporting notes

Emails, Phone call transcripts, other written evidence

• 1A: 8-12-2011/10:13am Phone interview today with Tom McAlley, gentleman rancher in Tatum, Texas
• 2A: 8-12-2011/11:25am Phone interview today with Tim Jenkins, rancher in Athens, Texas

Interview details

• 1A: Q: What has this summer been like for you?

A: "Terrible. I'm a small rancher, but I can easily run 80 - 100 head of cattle...right now, I only have 14. I've actually had to buy food for my cattle. In the summer, that's unheard of." Q: Is it that serious all over the state? A: "It's a big problem. People don't understand....this drought effects domestic and wild animals, the economy, everything. Although beef prices have held pretty steady lately, lots of ranchers are taking calves off of cows early this summer and selling them...that's going to create a glut of calves for slaughter. Cows can't nurse their calves because it's too hot and the feed for the cows is expensive so the calves have to go." Q: What's you main worry right now? A: "We just need rain. We need lots of rain. I only have about one-fourth the amount of cattle that I could easily run under most conditions."

• 2A: Q: Tell me about your summer.

A: "Unbelievable is all I can say. I have three ponds on my place — they're all dry now. They should be teeming with frogs, insects. Small animals would normally go there to drink. I've got hundreds of dead fish in those ponds. I've paid huge sums of money just to feed my cattle this summer. If my parents were alive, [sighs] they wouldn't believe what we're going through right now. I may see the effects of this for the remainder of my life. It's depressing, really."

Reviewer, please.....

...read this comment I left on Rayboy8's talk page after he deemed this article stale, and please note that I had a typo on a source that I fixed (and, predictably, he didn't catch before slinging "stale" on this like so-much- pocket lint.)

This is a classic Wikinews situation.....calling an article like this stale. Now, I will confess that I did have a typo on the date of one article (the Reuters article was really published on August 12th.....my error.....please look again). My phone interviews were both conducted on August 12th................so, that's 3 sources, a long way from "stale". Now, admittedly, I did stretch just a bit with the article from the 8th.....I'll concede that. But the drought in Texas (a profoundly NEWSWORTHY item)....was the same on August 9th, 10th, 11th and 12th....and remains the same today. I just wish that reviewers would develop a "whole picture" philosophy about things........I fear that your decision was just a classic Wikinews rubber-stamp action....so predictable and so de-motivating.Bddpaux (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Bddpaux (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you. More importantly, original reports/interviews are not strictly bound by the 3-day rule. Ragettho (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, OR runs on a different clock (even the 2–3 day "rule" for synthesis has flexibility built into it, but that's a whole different issue :-). I once saw an interview go stale, but the time involved was something well over a month iirc. --Pi zero (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1272703 [Passed]

Revision 1272703 of this article has been reviewed by Ragettho (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good job on the interviews! I've removed some potential copyright violations — you seemed to take a lot of information from Reuters and just reword some stuff. By switching some phrases around and changing a few more words, I think I've addressed the problem. But next time, make sure you draw from all of your sources and synthesize them into your own work. That way, you don't rely too much on one source. 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 1272703 of this article has been reviewed by Ragettho (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good job on the interviews! I've removed some potential copyright violations — you seemed to take a lot of information from Reuters and just reword some stuff. By switching some phrases around and changing a few more words, I think I've addressed the problem. But next time, make sure you draw from all of your sources and synthesize them into your own work. That way, you don't rely too much on one source. 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.