I belong to an e-mail list wherein I receive releases from the governor's office.......here's a link to an editorial his office released (written by the Governor) on Friday the 11th:
The comment about "infrastructure"....I work for a state agency in Texas and we've gotten several bulletins over the past 2 weeks discussing the strain(s) felt on state/county agencies. --Bddpaux (talk) 04:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The lede had too much detail and felt consequently unfocused; eventually (as the edit history shows) I figured out it could be drastically sharpened simply by separating the last sentence to a separate paragraph. Suddenly, instead of "Perry said bad things about Obama", it comes across (imho) much more clearly as "Perry said the root cause of the problem is not enough border security".
With only the reporter's notes given, I can't translate getting several bulletins as 'significantly striking the infrastructure'. Bluntly, I would expect the Texas political machine to send out bulletins playing up whatever they currently want people to be afraid of. That doesn't mean the infrastructure isn't being seriously stressed by the situation (scuttlebutt says it is); but the reporter's notes don't give me nearly enough to go on, considering the potential for propaganda.
I had a close eye on neutrality, on this one; cut the word "crisis" when written in Wikinews's voice, as it's a subjective judgement (reporters', or reviewers', subjective judgement being beside the point for us). The article makes clear to the reader it's presenting just one side of an argument, so that's fine. A larger article would presumably go into additional perspectives.
I wanted to make the headline more specific — seems like the Texas governor often does that — but, well.
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.
The lede had too much detail and felt consequently unfocused; eventually (as the edit history shows) I figured out it could be drastically sharpened simply by separating the last sentence to a separate paragraph. Suddenly, instead of "Perry said bad things about Obama", it comes across (imho) much more clearly as "Perry said the root cause of the problem is not enough border security".
With only the reporter's notes given, I can't translate getting several bulletins as 'significantly striking the infrastructure'. Bluntly, I would expect the Texas political machine to send out bulletins playing up whatever they currently want people to be afraid of. That doesn't mean the infrastructure isn't being seriously stressed by the situation (scuttlebutt says it is); but the reporter's notes don't give me nearly enough to go on, considering the potential for propaganda.
I had a close eye on neutrality, on this one; cut the word "crisis" when written in Wikinews's voice, as it's a subjective judgement (reporters', or reviewers', subjective judgement being beside the point for us). The article makes clear to the reader it's presenting just one side of an argument, so that's fine. A larger article would presumably go into additional perspectives.
I wanted to make the headline more specific — seems like the Texas governor often does that — but, well.
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.
