Talk:U2 walks over the Bosphorus Bridge before concert

Review of revision 1090193 [Passed]

Revision 1090193 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Scarcely newsworthy in it's present form. It would have been nice to have had the political significance of the colour of the iPod explained, as well as the comments regarding Pakistan added to the 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 1090193 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Scarcely newsworthy in it's present form. It would have been nice to have had the political significance of the colour of the iPod explained, as well as the comments regarding Pakistan added to the 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.

Sic

Regardless of the correctness or not of the use of 'And' to open a sentence (and the wiktionary says it is common), it is inappropriate to use "sic" to draw readers' attention to our views on style or grammar.

More importantly, should the second word of the 4th sentence be "than" or "then"?

--InfantGorilla (talk) 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite follow when grammar became a question of POV. We all do it, but we cannot pick and choose what we will leave untouched in quotes and what's ok because we do it too. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

We have to decide when to use 'sic', as other publications do. We should use it for blatant errors, but not when someone's English style doesn't follow classical rules. The anon was right to remove 'sic': it broke up the flow without adding to the news.

It is rare I disagree with you, but on this issue we are poles apart.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I will defer to Amgine below, who I asked to come in as having rather better knowledge of English than myself. However, I note that the IP's reasoning and yours don't match. I also view your second response as a somewhat different proposition to the accusation I was originally subject to. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Argh. Okay, use of sic: for a given error of grammar or usage, even if later repeated, use only once. The later sic is assumed. And is a perfectly acceptable beginning for an independent clause or sentence, especially when quoting dialogue. The first [Bağış] should actually appear after the word 'know', perhaps as [, Bağış,]; the further uses should be omitted. Since the quote is not written in eye dialect, the word in the 4th sentence should be 'then', not 'than'. - Amgine | ^t 19:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

The original accusations were more blunt, and I am sorry to offend you (BRS), but I am not sorry I disagree with you.

Thanks for the lesson, Amgine. I learned several things which I will probably continue to get wrong.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha. Getting things wrong pays; it is considered to be the profession of a career politician. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Turkish interwiki

I don't read Turkish, but I am quite happy to have the wikilink,(to tr:U2'dan dev İstanbul konseri) as an article about the concert and an article about the walk over the bridge are two articles about the same event, with different focus. One mentions the concert in the last para, and the other mentions the political meetings in the last para.

I think an interwiki should link the closest article about the same news on the sister wiki, but it need not focus on exactly the same development or the same moment in time. Not only are there unavoidable delays in gathering news across languages, but each wiki makes its own choices about what parts of a news item to focus on.

--InfantGorilla (talk) 16:19, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, had I known that the other article did make mention of the political aspect, I would have happily sighted it. That's why I left my reversion unsighted; I simply wasn't sure enough about the content. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC)