Talk:Trial for Texas lawyer accused of murder enters third day

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Notes[edit]

Watching a Twitter feed from a reporter with WFAA (Tanya Eiserer)covering the trial. --Bddpaux (talk) 18:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]






  • I have a drop of first-hand OR about events in 2013. My wife and I are friends with a DA and his wife (not in my county or Kaufman county). They and many other public officials (for a little while, at least) thought their was some huge conspiracy to execute public officials in Texas....they expressed to us that they were scared....seriously! --Bddmagic (talk) 18:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

and a separate Twitter feed[edit]

Nice quote. --Pi zero (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 3071241 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 3071241 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Verifiability: Not ready: Not sure whether to list this single-source-ish problem under "verifiability" or "copyright"; anyway, see below.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer:

  • If I'm not misunderstanding here, this is all (except the drop of first-hand OR from last year) from one WFAA reporter who's covering the trial. Not exactly OR, but more importantly, not more than one mutually independent source. I wasn't entirely sure from the notes whether there's a second WFAA reporter involved, but they'd still be two WFAA sources.

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 3071241 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:00, 2 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Verifiability: Not ready: Not sure whether to list this single-source-ish problem under "verifiability" or "copyright"; anyway, see below.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer:

  • If I'm not misunderstanding here, this is all (except the drop of first-hand OR from last year) from one WFAA reporter who's covering the trial. Not exactly OR, but more importantly, not more than one mutually independent source. I wasn't entirely sure from the notes whether there's a second WFAA reporter involved, but they'd still be two WFAA sources.

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.

Review of revision 3071612 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 3071612 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • Okay, we've got two independent sources (marginally, but you know that).
  • There's very little OR here. Even a broadcast report would require detailed notes; the facts in the article can't be traced from the notes, other than that one first-hand item, and I've instead been treating the named twitter feeds as (diffuse) sources. I therefore included them in the Sources section.
  • However, I was unable to dig up verification for about half the material in the last two paragraphs.
  • In the second to last paragraph, I don't see the Aryan Brotherhood stuff, disbarment (though I do see conviction), nor the number of computer monitors or that they were from a county building.
  • In the last paragraph, I don't see facing capital murder indictments, nor trial date has not yet been set.
I could be missing some of these, of course; but I'm not seeing where. I'm finding the Twitter feeds impossible to read straight through (sad, isn't it, the way the instantaneous modern world is destroying our attention spans), so I'm mining it using string searches.
  • Since the trial is ongoing, I'm guessing this is likely to be refreshable; if I really thought it couldn't, I might have made the attempt to cut out the problematic material... though the article isn't all that long, so it seems kind of a lot for a reviewer to cut.

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 3071612 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 22:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • Okay, we've got two independent sources (marginally, but you know that).
  • There's very little OR here. Even a broadcast report would require detailed notes; the facts in the article can't be traced from the notes, other than that one first-hand item, and I've instead been treating the named twitter feeds as (diffuse) sources. I therefore included them in the Sources section.
  • However, I was unable to dig up verification for about half the material in the last two paragraphs.
  • In the second to last paragraph, I don't see the Aryan Brotherhood stuff, disbarment (though I do see conviction), nor the number of computer monitors or that they were from a county building.
  • In the last paragraph, I don't see facing capital murder indictments, nor trial date has not yet been set.
I could be missing some of these, of course; but I'm not seeing where. I'm finding the Twitter feeds impossible to read straight through (sad, isn't it, the way the instantaneous modern world is destroying our attention spans), so I'm mining it using string searches.
  • Since the trial is ongoing, I'm guessing this is likely to be refreshable; if I really thought it couldn't, I might have made the attempt to cut out the problematic material... though the article isn't all that long, so it seems kind of a lot for a reviewer to cut.

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.
  • Yeah, I fell into the trap of putting stuff in there that I'd gleaned from many other articles I've read about this within the past 2 years, etc. etc. I'll try to shore some of that stuff up. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 3073711 [Passed][edit]

Revision 3073711 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • I wasn't sure at first the Star-Telegram was going to let me access the article, as it grumbled something about subscriptions. It gave me access, though.
  • The source mentioned the Aryan Brotherhood only as one of various speculations, and didn't even say whether it was the authorities speculating. So I made that passage here vague enough to be safe.

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 3073711 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer:

  • I wasn't sure at first the Star-Telegram was going to let me access the article, as it grumbled something about subscriptions. It gave me access, though.
  • The source mentioned the Aryan Brotherhood only as one of various speculations, and didn't even say whether it was the authorities speculating. So I made that passage here vague enough to be safe.
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Trial_for_Texas_lawyer_accused_of_murder_enters_third_day&oldid=3073720"