Talk:The fighting in Gaza continues at a great cost to both sides

Review of revision 2763369 [Passed]

Revision 2763369 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I didn't change any content in the article. It seemed fine. I did, however, noticed that many passages were only loosely - if at all - sourced by the two sources. I located a third source which fills in all of the gaps (I think), but those gaps should have been filled before I got here. I had some stylistic issues with the article as it stood before review, but that might have been my own writing style creeping in. In any case I "fixed" the stylistic issues;). Hopefully I made the article better, not worse. There were also a fair number of run-on sentences. You may want to work on that problem in future articles. Other than that, good article. 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 2763369 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I didn't change any content in the article. It seemed fine. I did, however, noticed that many passages were only loosely - if at all - sourced by the two sources. I located a third source which fills in all of the gaps (I think), but those gaps should have been filled before I got here. I had some stylistic issues with the article as it stood before review, but that might have been my own writing style creeping in. In any case I "fixed" the stylistic issues;). Hopefully I made the article better, not worse. There were also a fair number of run-on sentences. You may want to work on that problem in future articles. Other than that, good article. 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.

Additional comments

I had two additional reservations: the lede is weak, and the title isn't as on point as I think it could be. I left them as they were (more or less), but if anyone doesn't feel they're up to par, please feel free to change them. — Gopher65_talk 22:25, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the headline and lede suggest this doesn't have a particularly specific focus. We had an article a few days ago (I think it was) by TUFKAAP about a particular day's fighting being intense; that's a good specific focus. --Pi zero (talk) 23:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

For some reason I though this was a newbie author. I'm usually pretty generous with the first few that I review from any given person. I won't allow any copyright infringement or misquotes of course, but I'm lenient on stylistic issues and some of the harder to grasp content issues at first. Then I slowly ratchet up the requirements over time. Usually they improve with the requirements:).

The reason I like to do it that way is to not scare away new or newish content creators... though I now see that this particular person has been writing for over a year now. — Gopher65_talk 04:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. Myself, instead of letting things through earlier in the curve, I think I tend early in the curve to push closer to the limits of what a reviewer can (at the reviewer's discretion) do to improve things. And make sure I write extensive review comments explaining what skills should be improved, and perhaps also comments on their user talk. Even so my approach would likely produce fewer publications early in the curve, though a greater sense of accomplishment at the first publication. My approach seems likely to be much harder on the reviewer, which is perhaps typical of me. --Pi zero (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't fight, please. You got it published, for better or worse. Sadly, while we all strive for quality, I think only quantity will save Wikinews. --SVTCobra 00:31, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry SVT;). That wasn't a fight. Just a discussion:). I don't think malice or rancor was intended in either direction. — Gopher65_talk 00:59, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. A good-natured discussion of strategies for helping new arrivals along our learning curve (nothing really to do with quality/quantity).

I agree, SVT, that quantity needs to increase. Without, ultimately, sacrificing quality for it (one of the mistakes that doomed TOG from the start). Hence my ongoing, and seemingly soon-to-bear-fruit, efforts to develop tools with which to make the various expert tasks of Wikinews easier (both writing and reviewing, as well as, well, everything). --Pi zero (talk) 02:36, 25 July 2014 (UTC)