In principle, it might make sense to send correspondense to scoop and retain it private. Granted you asked for permission to copy-paste emails this one time, see Protection of sources, the reason scoop exists. Gryllida17:49, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
In this case, since all the information in the email is also available in the article or on their website, I didn't think it was necessary to keep it private. Kudu~I/O~18:35, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Original reporting isn't something we just take the reporter's word for. We need documentation. The reporter's notes are for both authentication and verification. The reporter's notes here do nothing more in the way of verification than saying "trust me". As for authentication, which is quite important for OR, setting aside our limited familiarity with the reporter, how exactly to we, or even the reporter, know who an IRC conversation was with? (Note in general that OR supporting information not suitable for publication on-wiki can be made available to reviewers by emailing it to "scoop at wikinewsie dot org"; whether that's of any help in this case, I don't know.)
Besides lack of documentation for the interview itself, there's also nothing to verify the background information in the introduction to the article. Generally an interview has some synthesis sources used to establish the information in the introduction — and the synthesis sources are also used to help established newsworthiness, speaking of which,
Is this newsworthy? The relevance of the group is unclear to me. It's the sort of thing that ought to have been brought out by questions in the interview (I'm noting this independent of the above documentation problem), and also bolstered by use of synthesis sources, as mentioned above.
Do not put external links in the body of an article. Use {{w}} for wikilinks, rather than hardcoding them with syntax [[w:...|...]]. See the Style guide.
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.
Original reporting isn't something we just take the reporter's word for. We need documentation. The reporter's notes are for both authentication and verification. The reporter's notes here do nothing more in the way of verification than saying "trust me". As for authentication, which is quite important for OR, setting aside our limited familiarity with the reporter, how exactly to we, or even the reporter, know who an IRC conversation was with? (Note in general that OR supporting information not suitable for publication on-wiki can be made available to reviewers by emailing it to "scoop at wikinewsie dot org"; whether that's of any help in this case, I don't know.)
Besides lack of documentation for the interview itself, there's also nothing to verify the background information in the introduction to the article. Generally an interview has some synthesis sources used to establish the information in the introduction — and the synthesis sources are also used to help established newsworthiness, speaking of which,
Is this newsworthy? The relevance of the group is unclear to me. It's the sort of thing that ought to have been brought out by questions in the interview (I'm noting this independent of the above documentation problem), and also bolstered by use of synthesis sources, as mentioned above.
Do not put external links in the body of an article. Use {{w}} for wikilinks, rather than hardcoding them with syntax [[w:...|...]]. See the Style guide.
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 review. I think I've addressed all the issues that you mentioned. The main element that makes this interview newsworthy is the upcoming July 4th protests. Kudu~I/O~23:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I had the same concerns as Pi Zero when I looked at this article: "How is this organization noteworthy at all?", and "How do we have any proof that this was the organization?". I think they were both addressed. Great work. Surfer43 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
If nobody else reviews this in the meantime, there's no way I'd get to this for a full review till at least tomorrow morning local (at least ten hours from now), since I'm tied up this evening with the update to the Morsi article. --Pi zero (talk) 00:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)Reply
I had serious verification problems with the introduction. The synthesis sources should cover that, but here the only mention of group formation I found was something seeming to say the group had already been formed before Snowden. And I didn't find anything in the sources to indicate it was formed on Reddit. That was awkward; given the tight schedule remaining to us, I had to find a way to pull the unverified material but leave the stuff about PRISM and Verizon so the introduction wouldn't be gutted and there'd be some justification for the images (though I did remove one of those, as the two together felt non-neutral).
Interviews are cool.
The questions about Snowden at the end help add depth. I've been thinking about what adds depth to interviews, so I asked around. Here's what another Wikinewsie (far more experienced than I in actually conducting interviews) suggested: When possible, lots of background research before an interview, then look for questions others haven't asked — trying to provide new insights. They also had good things to say about IRC as an interview medium, versus email (Wikinews often gets interviews conducted by email), as the more interactive medium makes it easier to base later questions on the responses to earlier ones.
Did I mention interviews are cool?
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.
I had serious verification problems with the introduction. The synthesis sources should cover that, but here the only mention of group formation I found was something seeming to say the group had already been formed before Snowden. And I didn't find anything in the sources to indicate it was formed on Reddit. That was awkward; given the tight schedule remaining to us, I had to find a way to pull the unverified material but leave the stuff about PRISM and Verizon so the introduction wouldn't be gutted and there'd be some justification for the images (though I did remove one of those, as the two together felt non-neutral).
Interviews are cool.
The questions about Snowden at the end help add depth. I've been thinking about what adds depth to interviews, so I asked around. Here's what another Wikinewsie (far more experienced than I in actually conducting interviews) suggested: When possible, lots of background research before an interview, then look for questions others haven't asked — trying to provide new insights. They also had good things to say about IRC as an interview medium, versus email (Wikinews often gets interviews conducted by email), as the more interactive medium makes it easier to base later questions on the responses to earlier ones.
Did I mention interviews are cool?
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.
