User talk:AZOperator/Singapore: US and North Korean leaders signing joint statement at denuclearization summit

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

Getting ahead of the curve[edit]

With this highly complex and internationally recognized piece of news a three day go from nothing to publication with a fluid story is next to impossible. Given the importance, I did some preparation, a synopsis of how the summit started and the major players that made it happen, with sources cited. AZOperator (talk) 00:26, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

I realize that the article has a lot of content so spin-off articles would help reduce the large net of content this articles has and increases the publication potentials. AZOperator (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

The Big Nasty Article[edit]

This is one very large, very complicated, very relevant article, so please let me know quickly how I can aid the review stage. AZOperator (talk) 23:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Test 6 Magnitude[edit]

@Itu: You referenced Wikipedia as your source, but at Wikinews it is never used as a source. Further, if you read all of the information about Test 6 you would find that the actual magnitude is debatable because it caused a landslide which amplified the earthquake. 6.1, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.8 - who knows? Quality intelligence is hard to get out of North Korea because it is so cutoff from the rest of the world, even our best CIA operatives could not be effective there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AZOperator (talkcontribs) 02:34, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Comment If there's uncertainty, it would be Wikipedia's way to debate it a bunch and choose a position to take; the Wikinews way is to not report as fact what is not certain; we'd either not say, or report that it's uncertain. --Pi zero (talk) 02:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I pulled the 6.8 that is in the source section of the article, so I ran with that. The debate is just my own analysis and was not to be attributed to the article. AZOperator (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I am going to leave the 6.3 magnitude since that measurement is for movement of earth while the tons of TNT is far more important. AZOperator (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I got no echo notification... just looked in here.
  1. "a landslide amplified the earthquake." - can you source that claim?
  2. "6.1, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.8 - who knows? " - do you think you can figure out some number personally - because "who knows? " ?
  3. "Quality intelligence is hard to get out of North Korea... " - It's not about having secret agents near the test field here, it's about having seismometers near north korea, while measuring with more far seismometers may even give good results
  4. "I pulled the 6.8 that is in the source section of the article .." - you should instantly have pointed to that source when saying that here (note: i'm not talking about having refs in wikinews, but (instead) authors always should be able to source all what they are writing... )
--Itu (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@Itu: In the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty and the subsequent treaties there were several organizations of monitoring nuclear tests. Seismology is only a portion of it. If a nuclear explosion happened there are sites around the world, nuclear powers and others, which have ultra low frequency microphones which listen to distortion of the mantle of earth. Secondly, there are satellites that monitor massive discharges of ionized radiation like x-rays and gamma rays. Lastly, flights can be scheduled with planes designated as sniffers. Those planes look for radioactive particles kicked up in the dust. There are so many contributing and contradicting factors with only the North Korean's have the exact specifications. As for the intelligence coming out of North Korea, you are talking about the most cut off nation in the world. There is no US embassy for the CIA or any of the 16 intelligence agencies to work out of. Also no known defector has ever worked with or in Room 39, that flat out means no assets are in play. All information about the actions said to be done there are by second hand analysis and generalized irregularities. Itu, I don't claim to know everything in the world, but I have the counterintelligence history to know how things like these are reported up the chain. It is based on purely estimation or by actual intelligence gathered by an asset, which does not exist since it would take years or generations to develop an asset with that much access. AZOperator (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
You are constantly giving replies, where you are not consolidating your claims ...
- "which listen to distortion of the mantle of earth" - again, any reference?
- "satellites that monitor massive discharges of ionized radiation like x-rays and gamma rays." - again ... , any reference in our context ?
- Any proof that "discharges of ionized radiation" or leastwise "ultra low frequency" acoustics, are used to determine magnitudes?
It looks like you are quite good in making phrases of well known facts ... and supposedly mixing them to strange claims, for the sake of proofing your points
- "second hand analysis" - do you mean your own analysis?
- "I don't claim to know everything in the world," - You are urged to really know the things you are writing in an wiki*-article are true, are correct. Nothing more, but nothing less.
- "It is based on purely estimation" - again, your personal estimation ....
--Itu (talk) 20:19, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Itu: it is interesting how you seem to think my statements are for shit, yet I have not seen one single statement from you where you provide any substantive where you can discredit me. Have you produced any line in the treaties surrounding nuclear arms, an asset from Room 39, the ultra low frequency microphones, or the existence of sniffer planes. If you think you know everything or can produce substantive information I'd look into it, but it just seems like you are complaining to get off on arguing. The latter suggest you will never respond provide facts. Wait, wait I think I hear your substantive answer - my mistake, it was just a cricket. AZOperator (talk) 02:09, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4412672 [Not ready][edit]

user:AZOperator (who is the main author of this) and user:Acagastya: how about the new title? De Wikischim (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@De Wikischim: as far as the headline is concerned, it fails to establish what Singapore has to do anything with the event, and "First ever XYZ", though unique, does not fit the style of the WN:Headlines. As far as the content is concerned, killed by MSM; and needs fresh information.
@Acagastya: I cannot address your concerns of "other minor and major" if you do not tell me what they are, outside of the headline. Please clarify. AZOperator (talk) 15:22, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I can not go to other issues until someone fixes the headline for the global audience, and does better than Times of India. In any case, the article requires latest information to pass newsworthiness.
•–• 17:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
@Acagastya: At first I did not know what you meant by latest information but even I did not know how fluid this was. Seriously, five hours during the middle of the night! AZOperator (talk) 18:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I was also pondering this title: "Singapore: US and North Korean leaders signing joint statement at revived denuclearization summit" which speaks to the turbulence of the getting to the event. AZOperator (talk) 21:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC) ┌─────────────────────────────────┘
my phone would not stop buzzing, except for Dawn, every news application which I had -- all of them were reporting updates continuously. And so was the case with my Twitter feed.
•–• 03:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Learn to use the sleep functions. After 10:30 my time no chance of getting me, until 6. I guess that is the screwed up part of the 24-7 news. AZOperator (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

A) it was sleep time for you and not for me when there were significant updates. B) Muting the notification will not stop new events from happening. Don't miss out the point that the story had rapid developments.
•–• 03:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, please have a look at the article, I really want this one to be headliner. AZOperator (talk) 03:54, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I for my part consider this article 100% approved. De Wikischim (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC) @Pi zero:, you're active right now, can you please have a quick look at this article and approve it? It's urgent, this subject simply must be covered by Wikinews. De Wikischim (talk) 12:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
If you consider this 100% approved, you don't know what the word "approved" means. It would not, of course, be possible to review such an article quickly; anyone aware of what goes into review would know that. Btw: Due to the multiple authors involved on this, it's likely to have significant problems, and they're likely to be especially hard to cope with due to the unpredictability of the text. I've heard it suggested that bits of text here were taken from previous articles that didn't pass review, an appalling prospect if true. And, just eyeballing the article it seems that the newest material is at the bottom, producing a confused inverted pyramid. --Pi zero (talk) 12:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
(The multiple authors point is fraught; entangled with the other issue. As may be. I'm not without sympathy for AZOperator's situation here, nor am I indifferent about the article's topic — though Wikinews is not at its most effective when covering "big" stories. I'm trying atm to review an article of acagastya's, a task acagastya cannot do.) --Pi zero (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@De Wikischim: Me and Pi zero are very aware of the issues with big stories like this, I characterized it at the time as "daunting" which is why I have a low publish rate. Also, you must remember Pi zero is a volunteer like you and me, so reviewing an article this extensive is time consuming, and as much as we would hope the turn around is variable. My hope is someone will pick up the challenge.
As for the part taken from other articles published or not, I believe arises from the second paragraph with regards to the pull out. I can say the last few sentences were taken from a published Wikinews article which have direct links to it at the bottom, and the source information is at the bottom. AZOperator (talk) 18:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
@De Wikischim: and @Pi zero: The better question is how can I aid you in cutting down the review time. So Pi zero, is there anything that would help you in doing so? AZOperator (talk) 22:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
From the reporter's side of things, the first thing to do to reduce review burden is to become increasingly skilled at producing high-quality articles, thus eliminating problems a reviewer would have to diagnose and deal with. Over time, one can then accumulate a reputation for writing smooth-reviewing articles, and things snowball. Of course, the primary route to better Wikinews writing skills is to get feedback from reviews, which requires getting reviewed in the first place. One imaginable approach, fwiw, which I think I've mentioned to you before, would be to write smaller, less ambitious articles, improving your statistics on getting reviewed and thus providing more feedback so that you could later move on to more ambitious articles. Whether that approach, or some variant, works or doesn't work for your particular situation, presumably you'd know better than I. --Pi zero (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Certainly ambitious this one is. I've got a general style of headline, clarify the headline, setting background (which is where everything goes to hell sometimes), pull everything back in, and wrap it up. The background is the issue, this one has a lot of background, but it needs it for a reader to understand the significance or have any idea what this meeting was for. AZOperator (talk) 23:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Could you...[edit]

@AZOperator: there are issues with the article which needs to be addressed with real-time communication. Are you online?
•–• 12:29, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that time has passed. Just give me straight up bullet points and I will coordinate with you about anything that needs further explaining. AZOperator (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Suppressing TOC[edit]

Is there a wiki-code that suppresses the Table of Contents? It seems to show up in the longer articles in the strangest places. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AZOperator (talkcontribs) 21:18, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

--Pi zero (talk) 22:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Seriously, the documentation on the wiki project in general is horrific. Like I am more scared of trying to figure out how to sort through content then I am with the new Halloween movie (PS: It looks great!) AZOperator (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
For things like that I usually start with w:Help:Magic words. --Pi zero (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Reaching out[edit]

@Pi zero:, @Green Giant:, @Acagastya:, and @SVTCobra: - I am make a broad spectrum appeal for one or all of you to take on this articles in parts or the whole thing. I have worked extensively with all of you, and I would not be doing this unless when I look at the main page with a story about fish as being the most up-to-date article (a few days old now). So please have a look at it, and I will be very gracious. AZOperator (talk) 02:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

@AZOperator: SVTCobra iirc anticipated being gone for at least a couple of months. I have been hoping acagastya would take this up, as they appear to be familiar with this article; it might be useful for you to try to coordinate a real-time discussion with acagastya, which I recall they had suggested earlier. --Pi zero (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
I'm very sorry I have to say it, but actually I'd prefer not to see Acagastya reviewing, at least not this article. The way he puts his criticism often works very discouraging to the original authors. I for my part often simply get angry when I read his comments . De Wikischim (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
De Wikischim, this isn't your article. Of course, for those who do understand that independent review is core to the concept of journalism, we have a strong, long-standing principle that a reporter shouldn't be able to say "I don't want such-and-such-reviewer to review my articles", as that could appallingly subvert independent review; but you aren't even involved in this article. This is one of those moments when I balk at saying what I really think, which is a known fault of mine and it's possible acagastya, in searching for an approach that might work better than mine, would choose a somewhat more blunt style. --Pi zero (talk) 13:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@De Wikischim: Like Pi zero, I don't play favorites either. I too was hoping Acagastya would continue to working as the main reviewer, but the clock is ticking. The four individuals I pinged were those I have worked with before, they know how I work, I know how they work - but that does not mean some other review could pop their heads in and add a new viewpoint. In fact that would be really interesting to see. De Wikischim, please do let up on the criticism on Acagastya and ask exactly what you need from him, that is how you build up a working relationship. I promise you, no one I have worked with is intentionally obstructive outside of the very rare troll, botnet or nut case. All three of which I assure you are not Acagastya. Also the more time we spend on petty differences is less time on the article. We are all here for the articles - remember that sobering fact. AZOperator (talk) 17:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@Pi zero: On another note, I vaguely remember SVTCobra saying something like that, I hope it is nothing serious. AZOperator (talk) 17:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
@AZOperator: I understand this to be not a "crisis" but more in the nature of a change of personal status. Another change of personal status a few months ago resulted in SVTCobra becoming active on Wikinews again after being mostly absent for some time, and it's anticipated that at some point in the future (possibly even during the next couple of months) another such change will cause them to become permanently inactive here. --Pi zero (talk) 17:14, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Clock is still ticking .... AZOperator (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Still ticking! AZOperator (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, football is the only thing which really matters here (see the updated front page). De Wikischim (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
De Wikischim, it appears that you are purely trolling. --Pi zero (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
There is also another side of this which is this is not the US's Wikinews, it is simply Wikinews. Even though the American Gladiatorial Football sets records for viewership with the Super Bowl, a lot of the rest of the world could care less, their football is as popular in more nations. De Wikischim, if you are trolling, please stop. AZOperator (talk) 02:05, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Your comments are helping nobody, De Wikischim. There is a difference between personal attacks and stating what is so obvious.
•–• 11:40, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Someone who abuses the term "troll(ing)", is trolling themselves. I hope my point is clear enough? De Wikischim (talk) 11:45, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
(In case anyone was wondering about this subthread, De Wikischim is currently blocked.) --Pi zero (talk) 16:50, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4413788 [Not ready][edit]

Thank you for the points as always. Stylistically, the numbering were implemented for shear readability and is a direct format from the joint statement. I saw no reason for messing with something that was already in place. As for the time aspect, yes we have been talking about this all week, I see only one way some of this content gets back up which would be because all the verdicts are in on how the international community feel about the summit joint statement. The lede issue seems to have occurred because I thought the summit would last more then 5 hours (which cost the US $6 million on hotel rooms), so wrapping all that really didn't go. I'll try to do a refresh in the morning and see how it goes. AZOperator (talk) 02:17, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

On second thought, I am not going to do a refresh - someone else can do that if they feel up to it. I am getting pretty sick of Trump being played by Kim. Just chuck another article with me being the primary into the freshness bin. There is however something to be said here about how much time we spend over petty differences and tiny issues, in the grand scope, on these collaboration pages. Communication between editors-reviewers and editor-editor could would be something to look into. AZOperator (talk) 16:48, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@AZOperator: About Trump and Kim, I hear you.

I'm unsure what you have in mind when you say petty issues [note: okay, you didn't say that; you say "petty differences and tiny issues"; didn't mean to misrepresent]. A distracting factor has been currently removed from the equation. The issues I mentioned in my review do not generally, to me, seem petty; the organizational issue, especially, I feel is the foremost thing you should work on for self-improvement. Build an article from a strong first sentence outward; if the first sentence isn't the whole lede, it should cover the most important elements with just a bit more to be covered in perhaps a second sentence; by the time a lede gets to three sentences one should be considering whether it may be getting into material that belongs further down the WN:inverted pyramid. (One of my favorite quotes, in the list for my user talk: "Never forget that if you don't hit a newspaper reader between the eyes with your first sentence, there is no need of writing a second one." — Arthur Brisbane.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: My apologies, I was attempting to address everyone - it was not directed at you. It was a general statement. Inside the water cooler, I posted a few ideas to play around with. Big articles like this have a place, where that place is, is to be determined. AZOperator (talk) 17:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
@AZOperator: I tried to offer some thoughts at your water cooler comments. I don't take your comments negatively (and hope mine don't come across that way either). --Pi zero (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
I know PETA would have an issue with this but there are always more then one way to skin a mongoose. AZOperator (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)