User talk:Aussiesportlibrarian/Prime Minister Julia Gillard farewells athletes at Australian Paralympic Team Launch

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

Original reporting notes[edit]

Original reporting notes[edit]

Australian Paralympic Team for London 2012 Launch Notes From written notes and tape recording Location – Great Hall, Parliament House, Canberra Start – 9.35 to 10.20am MC – Stephanie Brandt, ABC TL National Anthem sung – not sure of singer

Who was there – Prime Minister Gillard, Senator Lundy, Tony Abbott, Hartsuyker, Jenny Macklin, Kevin Rudd, Bill Shorten and many other politicians, Greg Hartung, APC Board, high profile APC athletes Matthew Cowdrey, Evan O’Hanlon, Kurt Fearnley, Libby Kosmala Greg Hartung Australian Paralympic Committee addressed audience of about 250-300 – including contingent of Australian athletes including Libby Kosmala and Daphne Hilton from 1960 tem. Hartung’s key points – • 304 including 166 athletes - largest team for away Games • 4,200 athletes, 160 countries, telvision audience 3 billion. • Government and corporate support • Key messages –“ the Paralympic Games has become an iconic event. It is the highest level achievement for athletes with a disability “. Hartung highlighted the value of the Paralympics by stating besides inspiring people it has “ it has the power to change lives and enrich the community’’. • Mentioin the importance of national disability insurance scheme Prime Minister Gillard’s key points • Athletes from today are part of a team – representing Australia • Joked about bad food and weather but stated Games going back to where disabled sport started • Govt spening $13 million – good quote “a single tax payer out there who would begrudge a single cent.’’

Kate Lundy Minister of Sport • Brief speech but emphasized Paralympians were epitome of inspiration’ to current and future generations Tony Abbott Leader of Opposition • Focus on Paralympians being given ‘a fair go’ and ‘having a go’ – mentioned National Disability Insurance Scheme • Good quote –“ you are best of the best. In fact you are better than that because each one of you has mastered a significant disability to be in this team” Interview by Stephanie Brandt with three Paralympians - Bridie Keen (basketball), Kathryn Ross (rower), Kurt Feasrnley athletics. Stephanie acknwoldeged taht Daphne Hilton, from the first Games was in the audience. Key points – Brodie Keen - APC professionalism since Beijing and inspiration from watching Sydney Paralympics Kathryn Ross – support from APC, Australian sports Commission and Australian Institute of Sport to allow 4 years devotion and acknowledged support of Warrnambool. Kurt Fearnley – aim for three successive marathons ; two good quotes – make the Poms sing the Australian national anthem and ‘”Australian Paralympic Team was‘ as good as an export as any team and any people we send abroad’ Short video of several Paralympians displaying their lack of knowledge of English history Tracksuits given by Jason Hellwig to Gillard, Lundy , Abbott and Hartsuyker Launch finished. Politicians and guests talked to the athletes and many photos taken.


Emails, Phone call transcripts, other written evidence[edit]

not applicable

Interview details[edit]

not applicable

On-the-spot notes[edit]

see above in original reporting

Details from broadcast report[edit]

not applicable

Aussiesportlibrarian (talk) 10:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Information shared privately for off-wiki confirmation[edit]

not applicable

Confirmation of email receipt by accredited reporter[edit]

not applicable

Review of revision 1540029 [Not ready][edit]

Comments by author - fixed up notes - added sources that conform facts in articles, deleted Rio comment Aussiesportlibrarian (talk) 01:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I'd have to add that the use of "farewells" in the title just strikes me as wrong. But, I'm a known Grammar Nazi. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:00, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing and the state of the article[edit]

I'm disconcerted by the sourcing on this. Note that sourcing is about where the information for the article came from. For example, if you take handwritten notes at an event, and then draw on those notes to write an article, those handwritten notes are a key element of sourcing for the article, and reproducing them is an obvious measure to help document the sourcing of the article. (The form of reproduction is beside the point; say, transcription or scanning in.) When the earlier review queried about sourcing, the query was meant to elicit further information about the origins of the article; however, the measures taken were to add specific points to the notes on the talk page and to add synthesis sources. The former makes the notes on the talk page seem a post facto justification of the article rather than documentation of its origins. The latter suggests either (improbably) the article was based on synthesis sources in the first place (in which case they should have been listed in the first place); or those cited synthesis sources are not really sources at all, in that they were not drawn upon.

Honestly, I'm having trouble, at this unfortunately late date, motivating myself to do an exhaustive source-check for verification of what is presented by, at least, the headline as a political publicity event that took place three days ago (at the very outside of the range of freshness if this were a synthesis article — and without that exhaustive source-check, I'm unclear whether there is any content here that wasn't covered in the press either that day or the day after). --Pi zero (talk) 16:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I actually attended news event in person. Recorded an audiorecording of the evernt and then took notes from the audio. I took images of the speakers at the launch. That is why I thought it was original reporting. After writing the article I found several online articles in the event. My article was more comprehensive than other online articles Aussiesportlibrarian (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
You do say at the top of your reporting notes here, that the notes are from written notes and tape recording. It's unfortunate that neither of those resources was actually reproduced here. Btw, yes that is OR.
Not every article on Wikinews succeeds; one way or another, some don't make it to publication, and one's earliest efforts are especially susceptible (though it occasionally happens even to more established Wikinewsies). Everyone (I mean, both writers and reviewers) tries to glean all the learning they can from it, and moves on. In this case, the main stumbling block seems to have been misunderstanding of the philosophical underpinnings of reporters' notes for OR.
My personal inclination is to view this as no longer fresh, given the time involved and the nature of the event. I may ask around tomorrow (my time) about that, but of course there's also the matter of sourcing, and at least one other point brianmc has raised. --Pi zero (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1541619 [Not ready][edit]

  • Articles should not simply be resubmitted for review without making some attempt to address criticisms on the talk page. That, as far as Wikinews is concerned, is a form of disruption. I note the grammatical 'howler' farewells is still-present in the title. Such should, and would, attract a failing mark in an elementary English class. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:08, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Attempts to fix the article[edit]

I have tried to fix the article and address some of the reviewer's concerns. I was initially just going to mark the article for deletion as it has become stale and abandoned, but it pains me to mark an article where there is OR, particularly where the author put in a fair amount of effort.

My understanding is that the date for the article is supposed to be the date it was published and if this is the case this will raise issues as to freshness with this article - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 07:53, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

  • I appreciate you trying, Cartman. But, even with OR this is a couple of weeks old.
Then there's the fact that it is a 'transient' event, not something like 'timeless' interview material that can be reused.
Without being really creative, and pulling in a within-couple-of-days source to use as the article's focal/lede point, I can't see a way to save it.
I'm kinda disappointed on how it's been looked on by the original author. Pi zero's pretty much nailed it for Wikinews. The learning curve is steep, far steeper than that on Wikipedia, but time-to-being a useful and productive contributor is far less. How you approach Wikinews can make a world of difference, and I'd say that's proven by Laura's experience — which she documented here.
  • How's about we userspace this one? If the opportunity arises to pull any of the OR for a future article, it's at least there then. --Brian McNeil / talk 08:34, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
That seems sensible to me - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 20:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1552930 [Not ready][edit]

It's unfortunate that the issues with the article couldn't have been resolved sooner - Cartman02au (Talk)(AU Portal) 20:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)