Talk:U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren releases DNA test results, asks Donald Trump to make promised donation

The starting point

I find it surprising when the first two paragraphs are written from one source. I know this can be fixed in the future, but ...

This information may be difficult to verify once written up compared with finding a second source first and only then writing a paragraph or two based on information that is already fact-checked.

That is, in my opinion fact checking is easier to do before or during writing a paragraph than after.

Just a remark on the process. Perhaps different people have different processes -- but I think it is worth sharing the thought in case someone finds it useful.

--Gryllida (chat) 00:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually I started by reading the New York Times article, which we must use sparingly here. I then scouted for more sources that could back things up while remaining accessible to reviewers. I often write Wikinews articles starting from a news report I heard on the radio. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:09, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Could add this as a source, too. Is the radio transcript available online? Gryllida (chat) 01:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't start from the radio this time. It's just an example of how a lot of the articles I write start with a source that isn't ideal for use on Wikinews despite being fully reliable. The New York Times allows limited non-paywall access to non-subscribers, so it's possible to use it, but the reviewer loses one of their five or so free articles per month. Other sources were available, so I used them after the fact. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh ok. Is the radio script generally available online in your area? --Gryllida (chat) 01:15, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

It's been a while since I checked but I vaguely remember the transcripts being unsatisfying to the point where I decided not to make a habit of using them. Sometimes that station posts something, but I recall it being more like a companion article than a transcript. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Timings

There are some things like Twitter comments whose timing is not indicated (date for example). It may need to be added unless they were all on the same day - in which case the clarification would be nice to have too.

The date or time of the 'dare' is also unclear.

The date of the test done is unclear.

--Gryllida (chat) 01:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I didn't get the Twitter comments straight from Twitter; they're from the articles. The dare was made in July, which is in the main text now. The sample was taken in August; I'll add that. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Two questions about this.

I'd add a note to "7/5" since to international audience it is not clear whether this is 7th of May or 5th of July.

Trump responded by "telling the press". This is a part of the 'How'; perhaps this can be clarified to specify which press he told this and whether he replied at Twitter?

--Gryllida (chat) 01:43, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Per the posted source it was "when asked by reporters on Monday." He literally told the press. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Submitting for review

At what point does this need to be submitted for review?

I presume the timings comment above may need to be addressed first.

But at what point and who would make the call for collaboration to end and the review to commence?

It happened on October 14th, and now it is 01:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC).

--Gryllida (chat) 01:23, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Where I am it's still the 15th (and I'm in the same time zone as the newspaper in which the findings were released on the 14th, so if we're going by universal time, then take into account that it may have happened on the 15th universal time even if it was 14th local). I like to let an article sit for a bit before hitting review. That makes it easier to catch typos and simple mistakes. But if you or anyone think it's ready now, go ahead and submit it. I don't mind. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh, do you plan to proofread it later and then submit? --Gryllida (chat) 01:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I usually give articles that I draft a last once-over yes, but if you think time is a factor, go ahead. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I would like to understand the process a bit better though (my head is not thinking very clearly today): does the "last once-over yes" happen a moment before you walk away saying 'collaboration welcome', or a moment before you submit for review? --Gryllida (chat) 23:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I usually do one last check for obvious problems (and the sorts of things Pi zero has mentioned not liking to see in articles under review, hehe heh) right before I hit the review button. "Collaboration welcome" is not something I have a set time for saying. In this case, I knew I was walking away for a while and that there would be a very low risk of edit conflicts if someone else made major changes to the article, so I gave the extra green flag for other people to contribute as they saw fit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Title

I really wanted to call this "Donnie dithers over DNA dare" but y'know. Current title is basically a placeholder. No objection if someone makes it snappier. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

A bit of the 'how'

Regarding the "I remember – and here's the verdict" quote -- did that include a link to the verdict? Was it published online? How was it delivered to Donald Trump? --Gryllida (chat) 23:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The quote was on Twitter, but I got it from an article (and the article said they got it from Twitter). As for delivery, the fact that President Trump is active on Twitter is common and commonly lamented knowledge and the reader can see the @ symbol, which is like a Wikimedia project ping. Are you asking if the actual Tweet had a link to the test results, the Globe article or to that video of Warren talking to the geneticist that I decided not to mention in the article? I'll check.

It had a link to the charity to which she wanted the donation made and looks like it had a picture of the Boston Globe article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I am asking if the actual Tweet had a link to the test results. Gryllida (chat) 02:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It did not. It had a link to the Boston Globe and to the charity of Warren's choice but that was all. It was just a Tweet. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:10, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess this is only an allegation then. Like writing on a fence 'my DNA is 1/64 native American'.

We can not say "senator released the results of a DNA test" until and unless we know the venue with which the results were released.

This needs to be emphasized in the story.

(And if there is evidence to support the allegation, for example an independent party confirming the results, this needs to be emphasized.) --Gryllida (chat) 22:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh that's what you were getting at. I thought you just wanted the article to have more details about the Tweet itself, but you really wanted to know about how the test results were disclosed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm finding, on in-depth review, that we do know the venue: two different sources corroborate that she released the material on Sunday to The Boston Globe. If I'd gotten to this yesterday (alas, that's not the world we're living in), that might have been sufficient, but as of today there really should be a mention of Monday in the lede to establish freshness, which I'd have to figure a way of working in with sufficiently minimal intervention. --Pi zero (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4439566 [Passed]

Revision 4439566 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: See the history of edits during review. There were some fine points of fact, which obviously one always wants to do better on though it's not too surprising there would be some glitches given the size of this synthesis. I'm more concerned with some points that wanted attribution and, moreover, a number of commentary passages, which tend to be analysis (thus violating our neutrality policy) and, when not analysis, are likely to be summary (which should be avoided in news reporting as it usually accumulates bias). 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 4439566 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: See the history of edits during review. There were some fine points of fact, which obviously one always wants to do better on though it's not too surprising there would be some glitches given the size of this synthesis. I'm more concerned with some points that wanted attribution and, moreover, a number of commentary passages, which tend to be analysis (thus violating our neutrality policy) and, when not analysis, are likely to be summary (which should be avoided in news reporting as it usually accumulates bias). 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.