Talk:Observing the 2012 Human Trafficking Awareness Day in the US, and wider world

This article is a featured article.
It is considered one of the best works of the Wikinews community.
See the archived discussion.

Developing

Hi, thanks for the interest in the article! I started this idea a couple of days ago before the official observance of NHTAD began as a story in preparation. I posted an invite for collaboration as well. I have been monitoring for events and that is why there are sources but no text yet. The article is now in development. It is really in the very beginning stages and so the clean up tag that has been posted is, well, obvious. But you can keep it there if you want. Will be getting back to this soon. Thanks, Crtew (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Just seeking clarity. :-)  Though the headline does need to be more specific. I've pared it back to {{develop}}. --Pi zero (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, although I'm still not sure how advance stories should be handled with the tags. There is a category for Story Preparation and Developing but I must be missing the information about how to put an article on the right path. Appreciate the assistance! Crtew (talk) 17:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

For a story being set up a mere two days in advance, {{develop}} will do fine. (There was some confusion over probably-mistakenly-placed tags early in the life of this article.) A story being set up much further in advance might be placed in Story preparation (though I'm not a fan), or if the author really wants to work on it alone for a while they might put it in their userspace. Part of the point of story preparation is, I believe, that those stories are supposed to not be indexed by search engines (which is important if, say, one is preparing an obituary for someone who's not dead yet). --Pi zero (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! You made that point a lot clear to me. Thank you for all your help on this article Pi Crtew (talk) 02:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Headline

The headline needs to be specific. WN:SG#Headlines. "Tell the most important and unique thing"; the headline should encapsulate the news event, but here it encapsulates a broad process into which the news event fits. --Pi zero (talk) 07:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1367394 [Not ready]

Revision 1367394 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 09:24, 12 January 2012 (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 ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: It's an interesting concept, to have a bunch of people each write one paragraph of a large broad-coverage article. (I suspect source-checking the individual paragraphs will produce wildly varying quality/problems, but haven't gotten to that yet, and will honestly need some hours of sleep first — will be off to sleep about as soon as I finish writing this.) However, there are some problems to clear up. Some of the early material is unsourced; I specifically looked for and could not find the stuff about the UN protocol (after skimming all the sources for it, I string-searched all of them for "protocol"). The one sentence I did count fully verified was the one before that (by piecing together bits from different sources). I'm hoping the second paragraph (about the June report) will all be in Clinton's statement. Some bits of the lede aren't fully checked, either. (Usual spiel: Anything in an article beyond obvious facts, like "the Pope is Catholic", has to be sourced.) Didn't even start on the bulleted paragraphs. The news event here is, according to the lede, the Awareness Day. (That word National is surely an error, if it's being observed around the world... will fix.) The headline fails to reflect the identity of the specific event; instead it describes a non-specific trend. I don't even know whether there is a significant coherence problem with the article as-is, i.e., whether the naturally wide-ranging whole is sufficiently anchored on the news event; one could see how there might be, given the authorship strategy. I'm pretty sure removing the bullets from the paragraphs is needful, but it may be all that's really needful... 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 1367394 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 09:24, 12 January 2012 (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 ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: It's an interesting concept, to have a bunch of people each write one paragraph of a large broad-coverage article. (I suspect source-checking the individual paragraphs will produce wildly varying quality/problems, but haven't gotten to that yet, and will honestly need some hours of sleep first — will be off to sleep about as soon as I finish writing this.) However, there are some problems to clear up. Some of the early material is unsourced; I specifically looked for and could not find the stuff about the UN protocol (after skimming all the sources for it, I string-searched all of them for "protocol"). The one sentence I did count fully verified was the one before that (by piecing together bits from different sources). I'm hoping the second paragraph (about the June report) will all be in Clinton's statement. Some bits of the lede aren't fully checked, either. (Usual spiel: Anything in an article beyond obvious facts, like "the Pope is Catholic", has to be sourced.) Didn't even start on the bulleted paragraphs. The news event here is, according to the lede, the Awareness Day. (That word National is surely an error, if it's being observed around the world... will fix.) The headline fails to reflect the identity of the specific event; instead it describes a non-specific trend. I don't even know whether there is a significant coherence problem with the article as-is, i.e., whether the naturally wide-ranging whole is sufficiently anchored on the news event; one could see how there might be, given the authorship strategy. I'm pretty sure removing the bullets from the paragraphs is needful, but it may be all that's really needful... 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.

As I've got the sources all loaded in browser tabs, I'd hope (knock wood) to be able to move comparatively smoothly once this initial round of issues is cleared up. Suspect there'll be some tweaking to do on a few paragraphs to make them fit into the whole; and besides the unknown source-checking issues, there's wikilinking and categorizing. --Pi zero (talk) 09:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Multi-contributor critique

This article has sort-of proven a point most longer-term contributors know, but haven't clearly articulated.

That is, Wikinews articles are particularly difficult to produce as a collaborative effort. If multiple individuals each contribute one or more paragraphs, then there is likely to be a disjoint in the flow between the sections by different authors.

I've left some recommendations on Crtew's talk page, and hope these can be used to address this concern. But, at some point it needs added into Wikinews' "knowledge base" for future reference. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 16:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

Pi and Brian,

It was helpful for me to see both of your thoughts about this article before the rewrite.

The original concept behind the article was a round up, such as "10 things to do while you're in Paris," only about NHTAD. The round-up article lent itself to the initial bulleted style, but you were both absolutely right: the draft was disjointed. It was as if 14 people had each contributed one random idea, although it wasn't quite as bad as a Dada experiment! I had provided direction in this part of the process by actually selecting all the articles that could be relevant beforehand.

The distributed authorship was "simplified" by each person taking one article and providing a brief summary of their article, but it still need a "rewrite" person, which is also what happens at Time magazine and other publications when multiple journalists are assigned a topic. Pi was right; different people introduced problems. I hope I've at least improved on the lack of flow, corrected some of the problems, although I couldn't completely break free from the bullets.

It seems to me there is a lot of potential for "Assignments" because one resource Wikinews has is reach in terms of staff. Even though the Wikibureaus never quite seemed to have taken off, it was a great idea! I've been equally amazed as I've scoured the French, German and Spanish sisters of Wikinews, too! Wikinews is a news organization that actually still has foreign desks!!! Most commercial news organizations have long deleted the foreign offices and now have roving star journalists who know nothing about the place they are in except for what the local handler tells them. If only Wikinews could capitalize on this asset.Crtew (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment on BBC quiz show to female foreign correspondent: "You were in the desert, and after three weeks the most insightful thing you could say on-air was, 'there's a lot of sand here'". --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1368770 [Passed]

Revision 1368770 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: An enormous amount of work all-round on this. I hope publication prompts a few more eyeballs to finesse the copyedit further as this is of sufficient length and detail to go forward as a possible FA post-archiving. 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 1368770 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 12:47, 13 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: An enormous amount of work all-round on this. I hope publication prompts a few more eyeballs to finesse the copyedit further as this is of sufficient length and detail to go forward as a possible FA post-archiving. 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.

Thank you for giving this your attention Brian! Crtew (talk) 02:25, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hidden Category

Category:Crtew (Wikinewsie)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 04:01, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Add Hidden Category

{{editprotected}} Category:Jzevans (Wikinewsie)

Category:Mr_awmorris (Wikinewsie)

Category:Slynnr.2013 (Wikinewsie)

Category:Inpayne (Wikinewsie)

Category:Srbealor (Wikinewsie)

Category:Kelsey_lyn (Wikinewsie)

Category:Sshall4 (wikinewies)

Category:Patmhickey (Wikinewsie)

Category:Jdbethel (Wikinewsie)

Category:Abram samuelson (Wikinewsie)

Category:Delexmer (Wikinewsie)

• Done. Going to take a look-see how the FAC is going... --Brian McNeil / ^talk 12:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Add Hidden Category correction

{{editprotected}} The category "Category:Jzevans (Wikinewsie)" is there but it doesn't have the brackets around it. Thanks

• oops, now fixed. By the way, switching editprotected to tl|editprotected is only done to take a page off WN:AAA. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Layout error

{{editprotected}}

Please change

== Sources == {{FA}}

to

== Sources == 
{{FA}}

to render the sources section correctly. Srinivas 15:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 15:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)