Talk:Thousands attend skateboarder Jay Adams funeral over Labor Day weekend

Reporter's notes

I am Wikipedia encyclopedia editor Tinkermen reporting on the funeral service and memorial paddle-out & skate session of skateboarder Jay Adams, with article information I took first hand notes by being in attendance Aug 29th and 30th. (Original Reporting)

I am only connected to Jay Adams and the skateboarding community through my contributions and research in writing a majority (approximately 38,000 bytes) of the article we have on skateboardings history with-in Wikipedia.

This is my very first wikinews article and I'm seeking a speedy peer review of the material I wish to have published as soon as possible so the content is published as current reporting for the Labor Day Weekend.

The only original material that I have written in this article is about the events that took place at the funeral and at the memorial paddle-out Aug 29th and Aug 30th, everything else is referenced material for this article.

I have not been able to find any funeral or memorial articles written about these events on the web as of Monday 9-1-14. Jay Adams has always affected people & the culture of skateboarding internationally, these events need to be written about and published on wikinews per "News is relevant", "Information is Timely", "Identifiable sources" Tinkermen (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

We call for extensive documentation for original reporting, the most advanced of the different forms of reporting we handle. People routinely provide things like video or audio files, scans of handwritten notes; there's also a mailing list ("scoop", that's "scoop at wikinewsie dot org") to send materials to that can't be posted publicly, such as those containing private information or those under copyright. I'm not seeing anything in the nature of notes taken during the event here, although the information that is provided here is certainly relevant and it's well to provide it. --Pi zero (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sent admin Pi zero (talk) what information I did take down via "Note Pad" using android phone via an email, waiting to see if there is anything else that can be done to meet Verifiability issue. Tinkermen (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Tinkermen, do I understand correctly that your first-hand notes passed through the form of email? If so, do you still have the email, and could you forward it to scoop (as mentioned above), thus preserving the meta-information in the email header? --Pi zero (talk) 22:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(Btw, in this case I'm not wearing my admin hat, though I do have one of those, but my reviewer hat.) --Pi zero (talk) 22:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Pi zero I emailed my notes just now to (scoop), I had emailed them to you yesterday following the email this user link on your page, looks like you didn't recieve them for some reason. Let me know if there is anything else you need me to do? Tinkermen (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Tinkermen Your email to scoop arrived. I can't find the email to me that you mention.

I'll take your remarks as a request for review, and tag the article accordingly. If some other reviewer doesn't get to it first, I may be able to attempt a review of this article tomorrow morning (my time; it's evening here now). --Pi zero (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Pi zero I edited the references per speaking with Brian and added two new references that just came out today. I made some last min edits to the article tonight, I had two different words in two consecutive sentences and removed those and changed another word, I have no further edits to make I believe. I have a photo I took of everyone on the beach, but I haven't been able to get one of the paddle-out circle, I could upload it to commons tomorrow if you want to think about adding it to the article? In sending you an email I clicked on your user name, under tools it says 'email this user', brings up a page and then I hit send. I can send another if you want me to try testing it again, maybe try and send one to me to? Tinkermen (talk) 08:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I have three photo's being uploaded with 3.0 license from an independent photographer today, but it will be tomorrow before I can get them uploaded to wiki commons. I will leave a message here as to their location, I would not know how to add them to this article. Tinkermen (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I had really hoped to undertake to review this artilce this morning (call it 12 hours ago); but, such slippages do occur sometimes since we're an all-volunteer project. I might not be able to review it this evening either, in which case I'll hope, if another reviewer doesn't undertake this, to do it tomorrow morning (another 12+ hours from now).

Regarding photos — pictures would have to be added no later than 24 hours after publication; that's when our archive policy kicks in, disallowing further substantive changes, and the choice of pictures is considered part of the substance of the article for archival purposes. Which means, ironically enough, that if this does pass when reviewed, the pictures may have a better chance of inclusion because my schedule slipped and I didn't review this earlier. --Pi zero (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Pi zero I uploaded one photo to commons, if you'd like the other two photo's let me know and I will upload them as soon as I can, maybe I can add this to his bio page in wiki also? here is the location of the file Jay Adams paddle-out Tinkermen (talk) 19:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a good picture, though it's a shame it has SIX12 MEDIA plastered on it. Makes it feel like advertising; we already credit the photographer. --Pi zero (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2848743 [Not ready]

Revision 2848743 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: We require extensive documentation for original reporting; see remarks above. (There's also a mention at WN:PILLARS#source.) 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 2848743 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:23, 1 September 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: We require extensive documentation for original reporting; see remarks above. (There's also a mention at WN:PILLARS#source.) 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.

• Comment By sorting the sources into date order, there seems to be some inconsistency here. On August 18th, a source states that the paddle-out has taken place. The sources from the 21st and 24th confuse further as-to when any event might have taken place, or if there were multiple events at different times. I note three announcements posted on the source from the 21st, which could mean the date on it when originally issued might've been closer to the source from the 18th. It's that lack of clarity on a recent news event to hang a two-weeks-plus-post-mortem obituary of that I'm a little uncomfortable with. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 22:50, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Brian McNeil The reference source from the Aug 18th denotes a Santa Cruz, Ca paddle-out that was held on August 17th and has it listed incorrectly as Santa Monica - I will delete that reference source, since they are quoting the Santa Cruz Sentinel News source anyway which I also have listed.

I have now found a reference source from LA WEEKLY for the paddle-out held at Venice Beach Pier on the 29th, this can be used as a reference source for this article, I will add it if Pi zero gives me the go ahead to continue editing this article - I'll replace the Aug 24th reference source that's confusing with this source: http://www.laweekly.com/informer/2014/09/02/jay-adams-memorial-paddle-out-draws-stars-of-surfing-video

The reference from the Aug 21st denotes a Jacksonville Beach Pier, FL paddle-out that was held on August 23rd, there are no other sources for that I can find other than facebook - https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.703247403083014.1073741963.136536863087407&type=1

Review of revision 2858348 [Passed]

Revision 2858348 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The lede didn't have basic questions where and when for the focus. It's also important to say that a Wikinews reporter actually attended, as the reader should be aware this is the source of some information. An estimate of attendance begs the question of whose estimate it is; if it's a Wikinews reporter's estimate, that should be said. With some qualms I left it in, but adjusted the wording to draw less attention to the question of whose estimate. I couldn't say it was the Wikinews reporter's estimate, because the reporter didn't document where the estimate came from (and should have done so; see below). A large number of sources can be valuable by enabling a greater breadth of information. Keep in mind, though, that it makes review more difficult, so should be used only when it really does add value. When you do use lots of sources, it would be really useful to provide some guidance for the reviewer about what came from which source. Such can be provided on the collaboration page, or — more often — embedded in the article as html comments <!-- like this -->. Some things I didn't find at all in the sources or the reporter's notes sent to scoop, and consequently I removed from the article (since none of it was so critical it would prevent publication). Some of it probably should have been in the notes. Even if you're caught out with less in the way of notes than you realize you should have had, you should include commentary accounting for all information that's original reporting. There was, for example, nothing I found anywhere to give a clue where you got the stuff about the disposition of the ashes. The stuff about other Z-Boys who'd previously died, I suspect of being taken from Wikipedia; note, Wikipedia is — by its nature, and by its own admission — not a trust-worthy source. If you see a fact there that you'd like to use in a Wikinews article, find a trust-worthy source and list it in the Sources section; if there's a source provided by the Wikipedia article, you can use that, and if there isn't — which makes the information more suspect anyway — you can either find a source, or not use those alleged facts. There are often details in original reporting that aren't fully explicated in the notes. A reviewer can exercise judgement as to whether the notes could reasonably have reminded the reporter, but that's for simple stuff. Complicated stuff that isn't in the notes, one treats as unverified. For example, it's reasonable to suppose that, being present, the reporter would know the boats blew their horns, and wouldn't have misremembered that, though better documentation is desirable. The skate session in the afternoon really should have been mentioned beyond a cursory allusion in the notes to scoop (I went a bit above and beyond on a sanity check for that, noting that the plans for it can be found on the web — which the reporter might also have provided). However, when it comes to specific numbers, such as in this case Hosoi's age when he met Adams, that sort of thing could easily be remembered wrong. So I pulled that detail. 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 2858348 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The lede didn't have basic questions where and when for the focus. It's also important to say that a Wikinews reporter actually attended, as the reader should be aware this is the source of some information. An estimate of attendance begs the question of whose estimate it is; if it's a Wikinews reporter's estimate, that should be said. With some qualms I left it in, but adjusted the wording to draw less attention to the question of whose estimate. I couldn't say it was the Wikinews reporter's estimate, because the reporter didn't document where the estimate came from (and should have done so; see below). A large number of sources can be valuable by enabling a greater breadth of information. Keep in mind, though, that it makes review more difficult, so should be used only when it really does add value. When you do use lots of sources, it would be really useful to provide some guidance for the reviewer about what came from which source. Such can be provided on the collaboration page, or — more often — embedded in the article as html comments <!-- like this -->. Some things I didn't find at all in the sources or the reporter's notes sent to scoop, and consequently I removed from the article (since none of it was so critical it would prevent publication). Some of it probably should have been in the notes. Even if you're caught out with less in the way of notes than you realize you should have had, you should include commentary accounting for all information that's original reporting. There was, for example, nothing I found anywhere to give a clue where you got the stuff about the disposition of the ashes. The stuff about other Z-Boys who'd previously died, I suspect of being taken from Wikipedia; note, Wikipedia is — by its nature, and by its own admission — not a trust-worthy source. If you see a fact there that you'd like to use in a Wikinews article, find a trust-worthy source and list it in the Sources section; if there's a source provided by the Wikipedia article, you can use that, and if there isn't — which makes the information more suspect anyway — you can either find a source, or not use those alleged facts. There are often details in original reporting that aren't fully explicated in the notes. A reviewer can exercise judgement as to whether the notes could reasonably have reminded the reporter, but that's for simple stuff. Complicated stuff that isn't in the notes, one treats as unverified. For example, it's reasonable to suppose that, being present, the reporter would know the boats blew their horns, and wouldn't have misremembered that, though better documentation is desirable. The skate session in the afternoon really should have been mentioned beyond a cursory allusion in the notes to scoop (I went a bit above and beyond on a sanity check for that, noting that the plans for it can be found on the web — which the reporter might also have provided). However, when it comes to specific numbers, such as in this case Hosoi's age when he met Adams, that sort of thing could easily be remembered wrong. So I pulled that detail. 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.