A Wikinews article should have a focus that is specific, relevant, and fresh — these three together are the main elements of WN:Newsworthiness. That is, something specific —in the sense that an earthquake is specific while continental drift is not— should have happened within the past day or two. A future event can't be the focus; it hasn't happened yet; see also WN:Future. An announcement of a future even may be a specific, recent event; but here, the opening date, March 13, has been known for some time, being mentioned in the source from two weeks ago. It's not clear that there is a specific recent event here. If a specific event were available, it would need to be the sole subject of the headline and lede; both of these now suggest the focus is the upcoming event, which, as noted, isn't a news focus.
On a different note, regarding the comment above about the last paragraph. Wikipedia text cannot be used on Wikinews, not even with attribution, because the licenses are not compatible: use of Wikipedia text on Wikinews is not an allowed use under the Wikipedia license. Wikipedia information also cannot be used here because Wikipedia is inherently not a trust-worthy source. Either information on Wikipedia is sourced there to a trust-worthy source, in which case the cited trust-worthy source must be used, or the information on Wikipedia is unsourced in which case a trust-worthy source must be found somewhere or the information can't be used.
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 Wikinews article should have a focus that is specific, relevant, and fresh — these three together are the main elements of WN:Newsworthiness. That is, something specific —in the sense that an earthquake is specific while continental drift is not— should have happened within the past day or two. A future event can't be the focus; it hasn't happened yet; see also WN:Future. An announcement of a future even may be a specific, recent event; but here, the opening date, March 13, has been known for some time, being mentioned in the source from two weeks ago. It's not clear that there is a specific recent event here. If a specific event were available, it would need to be the sole subject of the headline and lede; both of these now suggest the focus is the upcoming event, which, as noted, isn't a news focus.
On a different note, regarding the comment above about the last paragraph. Wikipedia text cannot be used on Wikinews, not even with attribution, because the licenses are not compatible: use of Wikipedia text on Wikinews is not an allowed use under the Wikipedia license. Wikipedia information also cannot be used here because Wikipedia is inherently not a trust-worthy source. Either information on Wikipedia is sourced there to a trust-worthy source, in which case the cited trust-worthy source must be used, or the information on Wikipedia is unsourced in which case a trust-worthy source must be found somewhere or the information can't be used.
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.
Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks, I was unaware that the licenses were incompatiable, the coda has been rewritten based on the same Gibson source used in the Wikipedia article. As to newsworthiness, it'll probably be better to wait until next Saturday after the film has received its commercial premiere and refocus and retitle to reflect that event. Can admins hold of deletion until next week. --KTo288 (talk) 19:39, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply
The claimed focal event has not yet occurred, and the sources are all quite old. The focus of an article must be an event that has happened within the past day or two, and we need to source the fact that it has actually happened rather than merely the fact that it was supposed to happen on a particular day. There is some precedent for satisfying the "two-source rule" with one source that says the event is scheduled to happen and a second, mutually independent source that testifies to it having actually went off as scheduled, but we do, at minimum, need testimony that it did happen.
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.
The claimed focal event has not yet occurred, and the sources are all quite old. The focus of an article must be an event that has happened within the past day or two, and we need to source the fact that it has actually happened rather than merely the fact that it was supposed to happen on a particular day. There is some precedent for satisfying the "two-source rule" with one source that says the event is scheduled to happen and a second, mutually independent source that testifies to it having actually went off as scheduled, but we do, at minimum, need testimony that it did happen.
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.
MusicrocksUOW (talk) 02:54, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey, thank you. I will keep my eye out for new sources once the event has taken place and update the article accordingly. Sure thing, I will remember to remove the prepared tag.Reply
Amongst edits during review (see the edit history), there were numerous credits to sources for exclusives that I was unable to verify. If these publications were getting exclusive quotes — things said specifically to them — then afaics they neglected to say so. I was quite frustrated, because I have great respect for the journalistic profession and want to give folks credit when due. It doesn't have to take a lot of words to say something was said to you. (Sigh.)
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.
Amongst edits during review (see the edit history), there were numerous credits to sources for exclusives that I was unable to verify. If these publications were getting exclusive quotes — things said specifically to them — then afaics they neglected to say so. I was quite frustrated, because I have great respect for the journalistic profession and want to give folks credit when due. It doesn't have to take a lot of words to say something was said to you. (Sigh.)
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.
