Talk:UN adds to criticism of Australian offshore centers

• I don't have time to review this one, but I hope it gets published.......looks interesting!! --Bddpaux (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1798261 [Not ready]

Revision 1798261 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:52, 5 February 2013 (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: The focal news event —the UN report— is only mentioned by one source. There should be two mutually independent sources for focal event. From the single source provided (and btw it's highly desirable we have an External links link to the UN report itself since it's the focal event), I got the impression the report focuses primarily on the detention being indefinite rather than its being offshore. Which would make the lede misleading. This might be fixable by simply inserting the word "indefinitely" after "asylum seekers", and if not for the aforementioned problem I might be tempted to do that myself — but my impression of the report is based on just one (fundamentally propagandist) 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 1798261 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:52, 5 February 2013 (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: The focal news event —the UN report— is only mentioned by one source. There should be two mutually independent sources for focal event. From the single source provided (and btw it's highly desirable we have an External links link to the UN report itself since it's the focal event), I got the impression the report focuses primarily on the detention being indefinite rather than its being offshore. Which would make the lede misleading. This might be fixable by simply inserting the word "indefinitely" after "asylum seekers", and if not for the aforementioned problem I might be tempted to do that myself — but my impression of the report is based on just one (fundamentally propagandist) 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.

• Thanks for the feedback! I have added the UNHCR reports for both islands from most recent to later (order) in ext. link section. Furthermore, I have added an additional source, which covers the same info as the "propagandist" source. Tweaked the lead. The islands are by definition offshore, but it a notable fact that appears in both reports and news stories. I tried to address your point with a lead tweak adding "uncertain", which is taken up later as "indefinite". Crtew (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It is precise to say there are 221 people (130 + 66 + 25) at the facility in Manus Island. From the Manus Island Report: "43. The Centre was divided into three sections. The first was the Family Compound, in which 130 people, including 34 children, were living. In the second were 66 single adult males of Iranian, Afghan, Iraqi and Kuwaiti nationalities. In the third were the 25 single adult males of Iraqi nationality who had arrived on 12 January 2013 and who were protesting their entry to the Centre." Crtew (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'd noted the Manus report said this. Others say other things. Under those circumstances, one would attribute the precise number when using it; the sentence is ambiguously in Wikinews's voice instead of the report's atm, and instead of wrestling with various approaches to attribution I opted for a simple solution. --Pi zero (talk) 17:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I've found no sourcing for the last sentence of the paragraph on O'Connor; I'm postponing deciding what to do about it till I've checked the last three paragraphs. --Pi zero (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The main idea about brother Michael O'Connor was from the Herald Sun but the last part was a transition based on the poll in the next paragraph.Crtew (talk) 18:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't find any mention of Michael O'Connor, nor of any union, in listed sources. My guess is, a source was accidentally left off the list. --Pi zero (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Pi, I'm not sure why this is happening but when I click on the link for the Herald Sun, I get get several lines and a sign on (user name and password request). When I search for the title in the Google, I get the full story with this link :http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/locals-losing-out-on-jobs-because-of-high-immigration/story-e6frf7kx-1226568163500

Have you experienced this before? Crtew (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The missing source: David Crowe. "Unions look for O'Connor to fight foreign workers" — The Australian, February 05, 2013

Some sites won't give the whole article if you get there from Wikinews, but will if you get there from Google. So google the title of the article. --Pi zero (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Review of revision 1798669 [Passed]

Revision 1798669 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1798669 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 19:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.