Talk:Volkswagen CEO resigns after emissions scandal
Add topicNotes on Original Reporting
[edit]I took quotes from Volkswagen issued statement, seen here: [1]
Quote taken : "I am shocked by the events of the past few days. Above all, I am stunned that misconduct on such a scale was possible in the Volkswagen Group." --Leugen9001 (talk) 03:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- This can be handled by simply listing the statement as a source, which I've done. (There's an ongoing discussion at en.wn about treating use of primary sources as a sort of "OR lite".) --Pi zero (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I thought that primary sources counted as original research based on Wikinews' standards, since I saw published articles with primary sources used and the original research tag.--Leugen9001 (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well... as I said, it's an ongoing discussion. It's less "OR"-y than the heavy stuff like interviews and on-scene reports. Perhaps I should have left the OR tag on; usually I'd shy away from making judgements about an article that's just been submitted, in case it isn't really finished yet despite having been submitted. (And usually in the past couple of years or so I'd avoid doing any review at all late into the night; I think this demonstrates rather well why I've been wise to do so, as my ability to catch details is evidently at low ebb.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I suspect we're going to end up at a point where a judgement call is required on individual primary source articles being OR or not probably based upon just what and how much came from the primary source. Given the uncertainty, I won't readd the tag but also won't objct right now to somebody else readding it. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 11:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- Well... as I said, it's an ongoing discussion. It's less "OR"-y than the heavy stuff like interviews and on-scene reports. Perhaps I should have left the OR tag on; usually I'd shy away from making judgements about an article that's just been submitted, in case it isn't really finished yet despite having been submitted. (And usually in the past couple of years or so I'd avoid doing any review at all late into the night; I think this demonstrates rather well why I've been wise to do so, as my ability to catch details is evidently at low ebb.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
- I thought that primary sources counted as original research based on Wikinews' standards, since I saw published articles with primary sources used and the original research tag.--Leugen9001 (talk) 03:42, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Review of revision 3842943 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 3842943 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC).
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 3842943 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC).
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. |
Category and link
[edit]{{edit protected}} Please add this article to Category:Volkswagen emissions scandal. Thank you. Green Giant (talk) 23:04, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Done --Pi zero (talk) 23:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
