Talk:United States: At least fifteen dead in Southern California after rain causes mudslides and floods

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

Update please[edit]

Hi @Yngvadottir, Darkfrog24:. Can we update this for the latest news. Death toll has sadly gone up. If one of you can update the article, then I can review it. Hope you can. Cheers, --SVTCobra 19:30, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing a BBC article from today, I was thinking of asking whether that was allowed. Hold on and I'll try, and one of you can then move it. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... Oh OK, I defer to Darkfrog24. Hope we won't run into the problem we had with the derailment story, where collaboration made it unreviewable. I'm happy to have a better writer work on it, I won't muck with it any more. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: I'm afraid I'm now totally confused. I now see it was you adding new sources, not Darkfrog24, and they are not what I would have used. I almost totally rewrote an article that two others had worked on, but was told by PiZero that collaborative articles rarely get reviewed because of the added burden on the reviewer. I could update this as you suggest, but I'm actually now on borrowed time, so I'd do it with the BBC source I had read and evaluated; I hesitated because I'd got the idea updates after the article was submitted were also a bad idea. You or Darkfrog has flipped it back to not up for review - I dunno. I think I'm going to revert your additions and do what I was thinking of doing, so it doesn't miss its slot. Sorry if this is wrong. I would rather the article were failed for something fixable, like too many non-local sources, than that it lose its chance to be reviewed in time. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to suggest something that strong. --Pi zero (talk) 20:51, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to be helpful. You can delete those sources if you've already got some in mind. I was giving it a glance, considering to review it, and saw that it was not the latest information. I just didn't want to publish something where the numbers are wrong. If you do not use the sources I listed, definitely delete them. Cheers, --SVTCobra 20:54, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, "flooding" is a so-so way to describe it. If you know the geography there, it is not flat, it is very hilly, so when a stream or river overflows it runs down hills causing mudslides and/or landslides. If you look at some of the news photos, you'll quickly see the difference. --SVTCobra 20:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand you were trying to help; I've had problems understanding how things work here, and the derailment article was a real case of good intentions that just wound up making a mess. As I say, I am unfortunately out of "weekend", but I've done my best, and I reckon if you are indeed open to collaboration, someone else, like Darkfrog, can take the better sources out of the history and use them if it just barely fails. Or I can try tomorrow before the window closes entirely. Thanks for all the help and the willingness to work with me. I've flipped to needing review again. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:08, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had an unusual happening to deal with at work today. Sorry but I'm not available right now. Good luck. I'll see if I can check in tomorrow. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC) EDIT: Oops. Looks like I wasn't needed. Good! And yes, Yngvadottir is the principal drafter of this article, added the sources, composed the text. I just did some gnoming and added some categories. That level of collaboration is not unusual lately. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No worries. Yngvadottir updated and I reviewed. So this is published already. I hope I have time for the net neutrality article tomorrow. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:46, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4375044 [Passed][edit]

Revision 4375044 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: I had to remove significant amounts of information from the final paragraph. Was there a source you forgot to list?

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 4375044 of this article has been reviewed by SVTCobra (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 00:17, 11 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: I had to remove significant amounts of information from the final paragraph. Was there a source you forgot to list?

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.
@SVTCobra, Yngvadottir: Of course it is possible a source might have gotten lost in the shuffle, that happens too, but, modernly mainstream news sites when covering rapidly developing stories tend to update their stories and, for some reason that defies sanity for all of me, remove some information. (I could see doing that if they were worrying about real-estate on a printed page, but, really.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that happens, too. But if Yngva replied quickly that yes there was another source, we could plausibly add it back in. But whatever, Cheers, --SVTCobra 00:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's one news site that changes which article you see at the URL. The permalink has to be added after they assign one. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@SVTCobra: Thanks for passing it nonetheless! I'll go back and read the diffs of your changes when I have time; just got up, have to prepare for work. It was the KTLA source: from the URL you can see that I was using a version from Tuesday evening (version 3 if I read the URL right); they've updated it on Wednesday. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:40, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sister twister[edit]

As I write this, the image I uploaded to Commons for this article is now the main image for Wikipedia's "In The News". Also, the link back to this article that I added to w:2018 Southern California mudflows is still there! (I am sure, eventually, somebody will remove it). I consider this a victory, however small it may be. --SVTCobra 12:43, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OhConfucius and their notorious scripts would also remove the template automatically, and Tom Morris is keeping track of Wikinews links. That user is going against the policy of supporting sister projects, and if that happens, Tom Morris said they might help in that situation.
•–• 12:54, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for what it's worth, my Wikinews link on w:George Weah is still up after 18 days, as is my Wikinews link on w:Echo Arena Liverpool (14 days). So combined with this, it's at least 3 links back to Wikinews. It can't hurt to try, right? Every little bit helps. --SVTCobra 14:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit[edit]

Please add Category:Mudslides to this. Heavy Water (talk) 22:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:United_States:_At_least_fifteen_dead_in_Southern_California_after_rain_causes_mudslides_and_floods&oldid=4739084"