User talk:acagastya/Archive/α
 |
|
En.wp
Wikipedia cannot be used as a source; it is inherently not trust-worthy. If there is information there you want to use in a Wikinews article, either the Wikipedia article cites a source that is trust-worthy and can therefore be used on Wikinews, or the Wikipedia does not cite a source and the information is suspect.
Also, text from Wikipedia cannot be copied directly to Wikinews, not even if the Wikipedia article is cited, because the licenses are incompatible. --Pi zero (talk) 11:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I did not know that. I will make the necessary changes.
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 11:11, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Oh! There's another resource here, that I'd actually managed to forget about: WN:Article wizard. --Pi zero (talk) 12:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm doing another reviewer now. Hopefully I can be more specific about what's needed. --Pi zero (talk) 16:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- Hi. I've done a bunch of fixing up, so a lot of stiff is taken care of for this article and you can see how it's done; and I've written a bunch of review comments to help with how to do what still needs doing.
- It'd be great to get this article into good enough shape to publish! We've got two past articles about MESSENGER.
- It only happened yesterday, so we still have at least a day to get it published, that it would still be fresh. --Pi zero (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: Yes I did see the changes. Sorry I could not reply fast as I was out. Had to go to a far place for an exam.
Now, O learnt how to link it to WP. Thanks for fixing it.
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 12:16, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: Yes I did see the changes. Sorry I could not reply fast as I was out. Had to go to a far place for an exam.
Hi. I lol'd at the story. Unfortunately, there were problems preventing publication; see my review comments, and also see the detailed history of edits during review (I generally break up my edits during review to make clear just what I'm doing and why).
Btw, you'll have noticed I reverted your edit where you added the publish tag to the article. Self-publication is strictly forbidden on en.wn (it's even noted as the foremost example of something not subject to IAR). We have technical provisions to prevent unauthorized publication. See the first pillar at WN:Pillars of Wikinews writing. --Pi zero (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, I saw it. But what must I do? The sources had used such type of language, that the article could not be modified. The problem I am facing is how can I write something different. The language and diction used by them is as such, how to say it in my own words, if I want to convey the same!
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 15:20, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
UEFA Champions League articles
I'd really hoped to get to these again before they escaped their freshness window, but alas, not. I tried to leave a few helpful review comments; both were still suffering from weak ledes, and on the weaker of the two I used an example from April to illustrate the approximate level of concreteness typically wanted for a lede. --Pi zero (talk) 02:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero:So how should be an ideal lede? I mean for articles of football match, how should be the formatting?
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 11:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get to this article yesterday.
I realize you're not getting how a lede is supposed to work. I've been trying to provide some sort of useful help in review comments; there was this one, where I used a lede from an earlier article as an example. Then on this lastest article I pointed out some basic questions that weren't answered, here.
Note that a lede, being part of the article body, should talk about the focal event in the past tense; only the headline uses present tense.
I really want to help. I'm just not sure what it is about ledes that isn't clicking for you. --Pi zero (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: I am totally new, and, I could not adapt to these rules since we had no restriction at WP. Still, I tried to answer all the Wh questions in the first line. Please have a look.
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 17:40, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Just did another review....not quite there. Hang in there! --Bddpaux (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
- Published. Congrats! See review comments and detailed history of edits during review. There were maybe a couple of passages too close to source — keep working on that — and problems with sourcing. Everything needs to be verified from the cited sources. You've definitely come along nicely. Good work! --Pi zero (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero:Thank you! I wasn't there for a week. I did it. Wow. My first ever published article. Ronaldo is a three-time Ballon d'Or winner, you should cite a trust-worthy source for that. I need to add that just because it was not clear who is he? I messed some things, Let's hope, I will improve in next articles!
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 06:04, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero:Thank you! I wasn't there for a week. I did it. Wow. My first ever published article. Ronaldo is a three-time Ballon d'Or winner, you should cite a trust-worthy source for that. I need to add that just because it was not clear who is he? I messed some things, Let's hope, I will improve in next articles!
Copa del Rey article
Hi. As I noted in the review comments, it seemed to me to be a bit underlength, and the situation is further complicated by the existence of another article about the same event on the review queue, by someone who's never contributed to Wikinews (and for all I know their article could be basically sound or could have all sorts of problems hidden beneath the surface; you never know, with someone who hasn't contributed to Wikinews before). --Pi zero (talk) 22:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: But when I created the article, I did not find any such article. And that's why I created it. Else, I would not have done it. I saw the special:NewPages and created mine. I hope, this didn't violate any rules.
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 20:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Your article was created first. I was just warning you of the complication. We had a miserable time all around over the Philadelphia train derailment; there were three different articles submitted; I reviewed one and it was the sort of review where the problems weren't obvious so I put hours into it before realizing I had to not-ready it, and thereafter I had the most appalling cognitive dissonance when trying to review any article at all about the story because with multiple versions I couldn't keep straight which problems had and hadn't been fixed in which version, and which sources were and weren't used in which version. And in the end we didn't publish any article about the incident.
- The two places to look, by preference, btw, are Main page and WN:Newsroom — except you want to click "refresh" on each of those, to get the most up-to-date info. --Pi zero (talk) 21:40, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
- Published. See review comments and detailed history of edits during review. --Pi zero (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: Thank you very much! I see, there is a lot to improve on. And I am too far from perfection! But, is this thing enough for the info 27th time. I hadn't added the link, but it is true. Well, if so, should I add it, or what step to take?
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 17:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: Thank you very much! I see, there is a lot to improve on. And I am too far from perfection! But, is this thing enough for the info 27th time. I hadn't added the link, but it is true. Well, if so, should I add it, or what step to take?
- If you act promptly, you can make an edit to the article that adds that source and restores the bit about 27th. --Pi zero (talk) 18:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
archive box nuisance
archive box nuisance part 2
archive box nuisance part 3
heh
... and now there's a Category:FC Barcelona. :p --Pi zero (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: I don't know. Is there a qualification required for the category or something? And, I saw that the article is published. And I guess it wasn't a good job. You had to make so many modifications! Thank you for that. And, sorry. I just forgot about the date order!
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 02:40, 9 June 2015 (UTC)- The general principle for including things in a category is, if you were researching the topic and went to see what Wikinews's archive had about it, would you want that article to turn up?
As for the article, sure, I made a bunch of changes. You should keep striving to improve, which is of course true of all of us. It doesn't follow you're not doing well. The students now submitting so many articles — even though they average well above the general population at the writer's craft (it'd be surprising if they didn't average well above, since they are university journalism students) — often make some basic mistakes that you're not making. --Pi zero (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- The general principle for including things in a category is, if you were researching the topic and went to see what Wikinews's archive had about it, would you want that article to turn up?
Round Borders in WML
Slow review
Sorry my reviews have been coming so sluggishly just lately. (I know I shouldn't apologize for such things; sets a bad precedent, and all that; but I really did want to get both articles reviewed on Sunday, and here it is Tuesday UTC and I feel bad about that.) --Pi zero (talk) 03:28, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: I don't know what to say. But one thing that I know is admins have to look for so many things. Moreover, they are elder (I am 16-year-old at present) and thus they have other responsibilities as well. I did not see if those articles needed some improvements (being flagged not ready) or something because I had to leave urgently (more than a thousand km from present location) to visit a university.
I had an eye on CAT:REV. But since the campus was near the state border, network was feeble. Actually, I came to know about English victory and thus made it as soon as possible cutting off all other activities and plans of that hour. I have no idea what a normal auto-confirmed user should respond if an admin says this. But, I would say (actually ask) What is a copyedit? Maybe, I can improve and that would not kill much time and we can have faster publishing. We are a team. That's it :)
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 04:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
- I really do appreciate your appreciation of the collaboration between writer and reviewer that enables Wikinews to work. You're quite right, of course, that the better the quality of what you can produce, the easier it will be to review. Candidly, the two biggest challenges for Wikinews — which I do actually have in mind a long-term answer for — are the difficulty of writing and the difficulty of reviewing. And the reality that the least experienced writers, the ones we really want to nurture and help get better, also take the most effort to review. What we need, I figure, is semi-automated tools to help with the most tedious parts of writing and reviewing — semi-automated because you don't want to diminish the human input into the process. It's the difficult human decisions that make high-quality articles; it's mainly the tedious human decisions that one would hope to reduce with tools. Figuring out how to aid these tasks without taking away the human element is really quite difficult, but it seems the first step is to provide building blocks for making semi-automated tools, and that's what I've been working on lately. (You can see a little of what I've been doing at Help:Dialog.)
- "Copyedit" — In journalism jargon, a copyeditor, or sub-editor, is someone who edits the article for style, formatting, and accuracy. (Cf. Wikipedia's article copy editing.) It really covers a large part of what a Wikinews reviewer does, although not all; when I use it in an edit summary it's a kind of generic term for something that I probably just didn't feel needed more specific description. :-) As traditional news media decline (because the economic model that supported them has fallen apart with the advent of the internet), a lot of news orgs have let go their sub-editors. One of the reasons university journalism professors may send their students here is to work in a serious news forum where they will interact with a sub-editor.
- Btw, some years back I did try to write up a checklist of things for a Wikinews reviewer to remember during review. It came out too long to actually follow it when reviewing, so I guess it's more of a learning aid; and there's a principle that says any time you've got a list of nine or more items, you've forgotten some; but it's still an interesting list. It's here.
Published. History of edits during review. --Pi zero (talk) 15:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: Lesser, and no comments. Was it good?
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 16:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)- It was fine. Fairly short, of course, but reasonably sound. I didn't see anything that said Federer was second-seed, though plenty that said Djokovic was first-seed. I was a little worried about the 'nine grand-slam titles' thing, which I suspect BBC got from the Wimbledon site whereas en.wp lists twelve. (Despite en.wp not being trust-worthy, it's worrisome to see it specifically disagreeing.)
I admit I was kind of intimidated when I first read the BBC article and, on that first reading, the blow-by-blow account could have been written in Greek. But I figured it out. --Pi zero (talk) 16:54, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero:It is nine only. Let's count.
- Australian Open W (2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2015)
- French Open F (2012, 2014, 2015)
- Wimbledon W (2011, 2014, 2015)
- US Open W (2011)
That's what got me while writing. That is the same?
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 17:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)- I don't understand. What am I missing? --Pi zero (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- 3 finals in French Open, not victory.
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 12:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)- Ohh. <facepalm> --Pi zero (talk) 12:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- 3 finals in French Open, not victory.
- I don't understand. What am I missing? --Pi zero (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
- It was fine. Fairly short, of course, but reasonably sound. I didn't see anything that said Federer was second-seed, though plenty that said Djokovic was first-seed. I was a little worried about the 'nine grand-slam titles' thing, which I suspect BBC got from the Wimbledon site whereas en.wp lists twelve. (Despite en.wp not being trust-worthy, it's worrisome to see it specifically disagreeing.)
@Pi zero:About to make for Pluto. To the max. one hour is required.
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 12:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
NYT
The NYT source is behind a paywall; I can't access it for review. Best practice is to avoid NYT altogether. --Pi zero (talk) 17:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- Oh shit! I forgot. Let me fix it.
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 17:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)- @Pi zero: Done.
Actually, I used that for a tweet by President Obama, but, I did not add it. So, I guess it is done. No other info was used!
Sorry for inconvenience.
aGastya ✉ Dicere Aliquid :) 17:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)- Thanks. I'm glad I caught it while you were still around. --Pi zero (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Pi zero: Done.
expires
Perhaps I was missing something, in preferring a simpler word, "dies" rather than "expires". If so, I do apologize. --Pi zero (talk) 19:12, 27 July 2015 (UTC)