Talk:Wikinews interviews Oceania Paralympic Committee President Paul Bird

Journalist notes

Hawkeye7 and I were both there. He took most of the notes. :) --LauraHale (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Remarks

This style of article about an interview, where one describes what was said rather than providing a transcript, is inherently hazardous re neutrality. Yes, I realize there are a variety of reasons a transcript can be infeasible. I'm saying the best interview articles are a bit of background information about the interviewee and then wall-to-wall direct quotation.

In this case, my initial sense is, there's going to have to be some tweaking to make clear that everything presented is description of what the interviewee said rather than factual background; that's WN:NPOV in practice. I seriously doubt I'll be able to attempt full review of this tonight. --Pi zero (talk) 00:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1602894 [Not ready]

Revision 1602894 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Apparently, some of these paragraphs are Bird's opinion while others are objective fact reported by Bird. For the most part, objective fact as recounted by Bird probably doesn't need explicit attribution (there's some implication of attribution, and the objective information is presumably pretty reliable); but the opinion needs to be clearly identified as such rather than being presented as fact. 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 1602894 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 14:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Apparently, some of these paragraphs are Bird's opinion while others are objective fact reported by Bird. For the most part, objective fact as recounted by Bird probably doesn't need explicit attribution (there's some implication of attribution, and the objective information is presumably pretty reliable); but the opinion needs to be clearly identified as such rather than being presented as fact. 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.

Review of revision 1603911 [Passed]

Revision 1603911 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good to see a longer article, but calling it an 'interview' is questionable with little-to-no directly attributed quotes.I know how difficult transcription is, but this style of article should follow a process along these lines: Text created, very carefully copyedited to distinguish clear fact from interviewee opinion Request review by the interviewee to ensure you are not misrepresenting what they said Then, submission for enWN's review It also required beaten senseless with RULE #13 (see here) prior to publication. 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 1603911 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good to see a longer article, but calling it an 'interview' is questionable with little-to-no directly attributed quotes.I know how difficult transcription is, but this style of article should follow a process along these lines: Text created, very carefully copyedited to distinguish clear fact from interviewee opinion Request review by the interviewee to ensure you are not misrepresenting what they said Then, submission for enWN's review It also required beaten senseless with RULE #13 (see here) prior to publication. 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.