User talk:Crtew/Archive 1

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

Sources overload: Two Syrian journalists killed around New Year’s Day

Thanks for submitting this, but can you trim it back to needed sources only?

14 is rather a lot to go through as part of the review process, so if any are not really needed I'd appreciate you trimming them off.

I'm currently working through a copyedit, and will then move onto fact-checking; so, anything you can do to cut back the workload would be most helpful. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:01, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Actually, no need as far as I can tell; each source's title seems to match a point you've brought to the story. Oh well, time to plough through them all. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Indiana Democrats block opening day of legislature over a controversial labor bill

Hi. I rated it not ready on review. See review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 19:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

How do I change the headline?Crtew (talk) 00:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll assume you're using the vector skin. (If you don't know what that is, you're using it. :-)
At the top of the page are a series of tabs; on the right there's "Read", "Edit", "View history", then a star, and then a down arrow. Put your mouse cursor over the down arrow, and you'll get a drop-down menu; one of the options (probably the only option) on that menu is "rename". --Pi zero (talk) 00:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
Published, under new name. See detailed edit history.
Note that changes to the article (such as adding back in the historical stuff) can be submitted for review for 24 hours from publication (providing any sources added are not dated after the date of publication). --Pi zero (talk) 17:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Re:Indiana Template

No problem. :) Cocoaguytalkcontribs 21:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

World community tackles modern slavery

Hi. Found not ready; there's a round of problems to clear up (including the headline, though in theory that's small enough for an independent reviewer to just fix). Hope it's the only round that'll need clearing up. Review comments.

Interesting approach to distributed authorship. It obviously has at least a couple of weaknesses — limited article coherence, and limited blending synthesis of sources, come to mind — but, well. Interesting. One wonders how it might be adapted to redress those weaknesses. --Pi zero (talk) 09:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Pi zero asked me to take a look over this and comment — hopefully including some actionable points.
First, and foremost is the lack of coherence, or flow. Since Pi pointed out this is likely a class project type of affair, then I would recommend that a single individual go through the article from start to finish and give it a comprehensive copyedit. I'd approach this as
  1. Read the whole thing, probably twice.
  2. Pick out the 5Ws+H and refactor the lede to include at least three, preferably more, of these in two or three relatively short sentences.
  3. Make sure each paragraph in some way follows on from the previous such that there is a natural progression.
  4. Related to the prior point, avoid repetition.
  5. Recap in the closing one or two paragraphs.
The observations from Pi zero, and myself (looking more briefly), are interesting with regard to collaborative contributions on Wikinews. Whilst a dozen, possibly more, people could well contribute material to an article, it requires one person stamping a style onto it; even with Wikinews' house style there is considerable room for variation, and such variation makes distinct sections by different authors slightly jarring to read.
The article certainly looks salvageable, and a piece which will get significant reader numbers over a more prolonged timespan than "X killed in latest violence in Y". If well enough worked over based on the above recommendations, I'd say it is close to the criteria applied for featured. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Spent at least a couple of hours going over this to copyedit, add links, categories, and then fact-check for publication. Do let me know your thoughts on the published version and those of contributing students! A point I am curious on is: were you aware of David Blackall's work, and the University of Wollongong students who'd been assigned to write on Wikinews as classwork?
This article is exactly the sort of stuff I'd really like to see Wikinews do much more of. We lack a critical mass of contributors to push out the news-du-jour that people expect from mainstream sources but, were we producing a couple of 1,200-odd word features each day that would make a reasonably substantial weekly news magazine.
When I spoke at Wikimania 2008 in Alexandria about Wikinews, one of the journalists in the audience took me to task over "failing to capitalise" on our then-regular print edition. Nowadays, we'd never manage a daily edition. However, I could easily see a stream of material like this article forming the basis for a print edition which interested people could fund printing of with local advertising.

As I said above, substantial collaborations on article production are rare; the most-cited example would likely be our coverage of the 2004 southeast Asian tsunami. That suffers from a variety of problems, much like my remarks above, plus a major catastrophe on that scale makes where you put the cut-off point for any report problematic. It was interesting that you highlighted Time assign one person to do a final pre-submission copyedit - I can certainly see why, and would go further in stating that the person doing that task should otherwise minimise their involvement in the article production.

Before any of your students highlight it, I am slowly (and somewhat painfully) trying to redevelop as-and-when I've free time. I've a few ideas on what might be the best direction to take the site in, one key point being further development of the Feed Tracker as a replacement for the reference desk. If you, or your students, know any feeds that fit into the continental breakdowns currently listed, please email me details. Once I've managed to standardise the look across the entire site I will be expanding the information there to allow drill-down to countries and, hopefully, topics.

The other content points of the site should be the closed wiki for embargoed stories, longer-term research, non-public information (such as email addresses and phone numbers for contacts); and, the editors' blog, intended as a place for those significantly involved in Wikinews content production to comment on such.

I've been toying with the idea of a second blog — perhaps called Editoriali[s|z]e — which would give contributors and reviewers a platform to ignore the neutral point of view and write a more traditional type of newspaper column.

Of course time to do all of this is limited, which makes it all-the-more-frustrating.

Last two points:

Since I assume you've more than a passing familiarity with content management systems that students will encounter when they go out into the real world, any input that compares MediaWiki (and its markup) with what mainstream sources may use for their websites will likely be very useful.
And, if this is for a specific course, I would recommend the creation of a category to identify articles created as part of it. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Good points all! I'll get back to you tomorrow.Crtew (talk) 02:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

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

I've nom'd this for FA status (here). --Pi zero (talk) 02:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

California teacher arrested after photos indicated lewd acts on children

We've been thinking the review gadget should automatically spam the user talk pages of significant contributors to an article; something like

This article was published. Review comments; edits during review. --Pi zero (talk) 23:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

How are your students getting on?


With the Human Trafficking article up for FA, I'm curious about any feedback from students on this.

Your point about TIME having one person work-over an article prior to review/publication is perhaps one of the most valuable insights I've seen on Wikinews; knowing if your students — and you — see value in the work I did to the article would be most welcome.

And, you and your students, are most welcome to take part in our WN:FAC discussions. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Egyptian tourism suffers from continuing unrest

You may have already noticed, I rated it not ready on review. I see the problem. I don't clearly see its solution; but I'm hopeful there can be one. (This sounds hollow to me, but is meant well: good luck.) Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

What about this new start? We used the article in class to talk about the process of creating a Wikinews article and how to follow through in the editing process. So your comments are helpful but also illustrative. Crtew (talk) 04:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
It certainly looks better. If there's a problem it's not an immediately obvious one (and often subtler problems can be redressed during review, though now of course I'm just speculating). --Pi zero (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Homs, video footage

Video footage from Homs. Shot February 9, 2012.

Just uploaded one initial video edit from some Homs footage uploading.

Any of your students be interested to incorporate it into a larger report? It does look like today's the big push to crush the rebels. I'm going to try and capture other clips as-and-when, plus look over my titling work (shabby, but only a 2nd real go at it). --Brian McNeil / talk 05:59, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Edits to archived articles

Use {{editprotected}} to request these; that way, the template's categorization makes the requests show up on the DPL at the template, so there's no chance of such requests simply getting lost. (Occasionally such requests can go for many days without being acted on. There's one there now I'd just as soon leave for someone with more relevant tech savvy, and there was another there I noticed and cleaned up a few moments ago.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Good to know! I was trying to see if there was a help page on this but couldn't find one. Thanks, Crtew (talk) 17:56, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Reply re New neologism

Done, thanks for the suggestion! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

No problem, anything for my namesake ( Cirt one and Crtew) hahaha. Crtew (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Ah yes, kewlness. -- Cirt (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for working over the Bahrain article, it's now published. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:40, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I must thank you as well, you've done the work that I should have. I'm new to journalism and this isn't my profession, so bare with me. Bahraini Activist Talk to me 17:58, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
After reading all the collaboration and seeing how I have wasted your time with some Arabic language references, I have to thank you again for caring to improve the article for it to get published. Another thank you is deserved for Cirt, ‎Pi zero and Brian McNeil. Bahraini Activist Talk to me 18:08, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
It looks good everybody. Thank you, Crtew (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Category name

I'm thinking Category:2011–2012 Bahraini protests, on the grounds that protests seems more of a news description, whereas uprising feels encyclopedic. Thought I should check with you, though; if you disagree, I can ask around for other opinions. --Pi zero (talk) 19:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I remember, the term protest conotes political, like the Tea Party or the Occupy movement, while the uprising was used for revolution. I'll ask Bahraini Activist to join this thread. Crtew (talk) 21:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
The article in Wikipedia was named 2011 Bahraini protests, till May 2011. Check this page to see why it was changed to uprising. CNN classify Bahrain, Yemen and Syria in same category, which is "Sustained violence" [1], [2]. Bahraini Activist Talk to me 00:32, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts on article comments

Html <!--comments--> in an article are easily overlooked unless accompanied by a note on the talk page saying they're there. Overall criticisms are likely better placed entirely on the talk page — or, if you've a high degree of confidence of the criticism, there's template {{cleanup}} to use on the article itself; I usually use it with format {{cleanup|<br/>'''Item 1.<br/>Item 2.<br/>Item 3.'''<br/>}}, which produces

--Pi zero (talk) 00:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Media mention

Bit cheeky, but Mike is a "Wikinews Alumni", and I think this is quite an accolade:

Don't know if your students might be interested in it, but is shows — at least to me — that Wikinews has value in 'learning the trade'. --Brian McNeil / talk 03:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I have time

Remember that time when you told me that you have something for me and I should tell you when I have time? Well, I do have some time now. Bahraini Activist Talk to me 22:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


I've added a new discussion section onto the Water Cooler, #wikinews-workshop(s). We've used this method before in bringing new contributors up-to-speed, and I'm wondering if resurrecting it would be of-use to you and your students.

As I say on the WC, it'd be a 'virtual tutorial' where we'd try to get several established contributors helping guide people in the production of a limited number of articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

News briefs:March 2, 2012

I see a logistical difficulty here. Review comments. (Just to note, I don't expect to be available much this evening, as any time I have for Wikinews will likely be poured into another review.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the piece was intended as primarily an audio project but in the past had been published as Briefs with both audio and its script. We hadn't seen any audio News Briefs that summarized the news for the week that had been published in a long time and so we were looking at how it was done in the past. I couldn't find any notes on the process that would have signaled to publish the script first and then the audio.Crtew (talk) 00:06, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me like if we call it a Short, we're basically getting rid of the Audio Briefs as a Wikinews product.Crtew (talk) 00:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Audio versions of articles are something we do sometimes. The audio specifies the timestamp of the text version from which it is made, and that version is a published version of the text.
The core concern, as I see it, is the reviewer's ability to exercise editorial control, i.e., to copyedit. Without it the reviewer has to just say thumbs up or thumbs down; we do up-or-down with the audio version of a published article, but only once in my memory with the article itself, an on-the-scene video weather story. I was uncomfortable with it then, and I see this as a problem that needs clarification. There's obviously less detailed editorial control in some media, but our whole publication model hinges on review — we can't give up on review that makes us not-a-blog, so we need to figure out how to move forward. The immediate question doesn't have to be that sweeping, though: audio versions of text stories are a familiar thing, and one reviews and publishes the text first. --Pi zero (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I 'll do what you suggested and change the Brief to a Shorts. Then if it is alright and in form, I can re-record itCrtew (talk) 00:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


I had a little trouble figuring out for sure whether the article was talking about the same day's tornadoes, but I finally decided it was, and sighted it.

A technique that's worth keeping handy in one's toolkit, thought it probably doesn't matter for this case anymore: Renaming an article after publication is to be avoided when possible, so when the headline seems to call for a number that's a death toll and likely to change within the 24-hour horizon, describe it in a way so it won't require renaming. For example, here one might have said "leaving dozens dead" or the like, and then no renaming would have been necessary. Of course, as long as the number stays at 39 for the rest of the 24-hour horizon, we've no call to change it again.

(Btw, a miscellaneous tip that may eventually be handy, in case you haven't encountered it (I don't recall): somewhere or other in the policies and guidelines, it's noted that even within the 24-hour window, sources are not allowed dated after publication.) --Pi zero (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

No offense taken, nor intended

I think you're good people. That being the case, right about now it seems worth saying so. --Pi zero (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

News briefs:March 17, 2012

This is a major undertaking, with I believe an important unprecedented aspect to it, and as such I've put quite a bit of thought into two sets of comments at the talk page. It's technically "not ready", but there's far, far more to it than such a binary description can capture. See Talk:Audio Script: March 15, 2012. --Pi zero (talk)

I'm finding some changes to ask for that would be outside my independent purview to do myself. I'm building a list on the talk page, adding each section when I've finished with it. --Pi zero (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
(Btw, I'm not 100% sure where my purview ends when we're talking about summarizing stuff we've already published. So far I'm being quite cautious about it.) -Pi zero (talk) 23:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree with a lot of pizero's comments on this; don't take the "not ready" as a knock-back. This is new for Wikinews, and we need to work out how to do this.
For a start, we'll have to figure out how to publish an audio piece. By that, I mean publish into our various feeds. I suspect once people have done a few 'script pieces' from articles that component will prove relatively easy. One or two of the pre-formal review contributors who did Audio Wikinews were pushing stuff out to services like iTunes as podcasts, I see no reason why that could not happen again - if we get stuff rattled through review reasonably quickly.
This also cojoins rather nicely with something one of our currently less-regular contributors and I have been looking at: resurrecting the print edition, but as a weekly publication. I've been looking at the FOSS package Scribus, and it will not be incredibly difficult to pull a week's articles into a magazine-style publication. To make it more than a curiosity, or experiment, use of a decent DTP package (which Scribus comes close to) would allow the insertion of advertising and prep for professional printing. i.e. it could pay for itself, perhaps even put a few pennies in the pockets of people distributing free copies to local bars/cafes.
Thoughts? Is actually producing a magazine/newspaper-style publication part of your coursework?
If this week's attempt at an audio version doesn't come off, then we all need a brainstorming session on how to get this all through review quickly; I won't suppose to tell how to do the technical aspects (but I could a bit of sound engineering amongst my experience) at-issue is scripting from articles to, effectively, produce a podcast. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Pi and Brian, I messed up the process at the very end by not seeing that there were actual changes inside the script rather than just on the collab pages. It may not be a big deal if you're comfortable with the facts. I'm a stickler for emphasizing the conversational writing style of broadcast and removing some of the details that would always be in a good solid print story. It's ok for a broacast story to be a bit more superficial because we're aiming for the ear and not the eyes. Process: So far, I've been following the model that Turtlestack laid out before audio wikinews died out and using his and User:James Pain's help pages. Once Pi is fine with the process he likes, I'll follow what he prefers. Right now I can sustain this project with the resources I have until the end of April. I'm going to try to recruit some people to carry out this project longer, especially if we can get the process fixed. My hope is that the blind or elderly could pick this up as a resource, that learners of English as a Second Language could make use of it, and that we can push it out as another way of attracting audience.Crtew (talk) 04:23, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm about to start going through the text. I can see there will be some points to tweak in the script, yet; it shouldn't take nearly as long as last time... I hope... because I expect to remember the issues on each passage from last time around, so will almost never need to reconsult the original articles. --Pi zero (talk) 13:40, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I've got through it. It took far longer than I'd hoped, because I wrote detailed comments on everything(?) on the talk page; we're getting our sea legs on this, so being clear on what we're doing is important. --Pi zero (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the current version can be run with. The one remaining question is page layout, seems to me. --Pi zero (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that it's published, the word that comes to mind is ordeal. Surely well worth it in the long run, because we know we have to push outside our comfort zone into these sorts of non-text media.
Review comments: ...#Review of revision 1439383 [Passed]. --Pi zero (talk) 14:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
  • I spent some time today looking at this, I've been away and hadn't seen it before. Very cool! Listening to you, I wonder if you have experience talking to an audience other than a class of students? I act (badly), and I figured that (apart from the Indiana hoosier thing being a little weird to me as a foreigner) you sounded quite confident with how to deliver a piece. From a constructive perspective, I wonder if we may need to do some mini custom intros for each piece, a few of the ledes sounded a little odd coming out of the blue, whereas they don't look strange under a written headline. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, by all means, let's adjust it! What Pi has suggested is that we start an article during the week and write the briefs in advance of the reading. The reviewer will then check to see it the brief accurately summarizes and captures the essence of the already posted story. So it will be up for everybody to see at least 24 to 48 hours before the reading. From my perspective, whoever reads should be allowed to make a few minor edits for flow, pacing and ease of reading. Now that one has been made, I don't think it will be so much of an ordeal next time. Pi really invented the process here and did a great job in editing and publishing!!! Crtew (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


Delexmer wrote a duplicate article on this story, later on, didn't they? --Pi zero (talk) 03:21, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


BRS has now undertaken to review the shorts article; it has an {{under review}} template on it, I believe. --Pi zero (talk) 22:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

... and I'm out of there! I hope just in time.Crtew (talk) 22:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Worse-case scenario, I'd overwrite an edit if I had to. But no, you didn't cause any trouble at all. I'm done now, published. :) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

News briefs: March 24, 2012

Not sure who to notify. I went through the script, made some edit or other to every section, and pulled one pending possible rewrite; explained on the talk page. --Pi zero (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hate crimes article

Dr. Tew, my hate crime article is in development, but I am struggling to upload my graphic to my page. Should I go ahead and put it in review without the graphic or wait until I figure it out or get assistance? Thanks, Erica AKA Abram samuelson (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)Abram Samuelson

Where in the upload process are you? You're tyring to put it on Wikimedia Commons? How large is the file? Crtew (talk) 23:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Briefs and shorts (no...not THOSE types of briefs and shorts!)

Hi Crtew! As you saw I contributed to the March 25 shorts article. I had seen another user had created it when I woke up and contributed to it myself, but, it never moved anywhere despite me adding a few shorts to it. Is it pretty much useless now or is there anything that can be done with it? I did add at least two sources to my sections. Thanks! Sarah (talk) 13:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


I am having trouble saving it under the correct format so that I can upload it to Wikicommons. It was created in excell and I uploaded the data from the FBI hate crimes website.

Do you think I should drop my lead altogether and just start with the crimes I am using as examples? I'm struggling a bit, to be honest with you.

Thanks for your help.

Abram samuelson (talk) 20:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)Abram

Brazzaville picks up the pieces after ammo depot explosion

Talk:...#Review of revision 1450024 [Not ready]. --Pi zero (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the excellent feedback! I'm a bit confused about how to deal with the documents that are not news. Could you point me to a model for those? Also there is no need to submit the Rand Paul story because I have the same issues, however, I do have materials that are primary from Congress. I have a mix of primary and secondary in that one (It's similar to the Fluke story). If you could give that a peak at the sources and collaboration page and tell me if I'm going to have the same problem, I would appreciate it. So my primary concern is documenting non news stories. I'm also trying to make it easy on the reviewer to find what they (you) need to find.

About the focus to both of these. The relief is ongoing and so I'm working under the assumption that if I can update the facts that it will remain newsworthy. In the case of Brazzaville, we haven't heard too much about that from the mainstream news, but what I'm trying to bring out in the article is the magnitude not only from the people's perspective but in comparison with studies of mortalities from explosive events. Similarly, Rand Paul has a standing hold. I'll bring out the deadline that the substances are on temporary hold to bring out the urgency a bit more.Crtew (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Synthetic marajuana article

I'm starting to work on it in earnest, with a running punch list on the talk page. Feedback on the talk page when you can, appreciated. --Pi zero (talk) 14:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

If you'd like to add a suitable 'investigated' sentence onto the lede, and add a sister link, that's okay; I'll know to watch out for those. --Pi zero (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

News briefs: March 31, 2012

Script okay (after a very few edits). --Pi zero (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


Looks like it already got reviewed/passed/published, by Mono (talk · contribs). Good work! Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Inadequate reviews

I'm saddened by the apparently shoddy reviews that were perpetrated on those two articles. As a Wikinews author you had the right to expect they would not be published without being reviewed properly, and the project let you down. Sorry. --Pi zero (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Last Ottoman dies, aged 91

Fascinating piece. :-)

I did recommend in the review comments a small addition, if you'd be willing to do that. --Pi zero (talk) 15:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyvio advice

I see in your efforts to help out you've actually got to the point of giving advice on not committing copyvio. This is very cool; many thanks. Something I've found: if one overemphasizes the bit about 'no more than three consecutive words', one sometimes gets passages "scuffed up" by substituting 'synonyms', changing tense, and the like to avoid more than three consecutive words verbatim. But enough of a passage like that is still copyvio. Which is why when I give this advice these days, I always try to find some way of mentioning not imitating sentence/phrase structure, and avoiding distinctive wording and turns of phrase. Back when I had a bit more time on my hands I started dabbling in writing a how-to page about this, on the theory that people would understand better what to do if they saw examples — an approach inspired by my own experience, as the most eye-opening experiences I've had on how thoroughly unlike the sources it's possible for a synthesis article to be, have been reviewing articles by Blood Red Sandman. I'd read his article, make a few copyedits here and there where needed (typos, usually), then start reading the sources, one sentence at a time, and highlighting the things in our article verified by that source sentence. And find that each source sentence verified small groups of words scattered all over our article. My woefully-unready initial struggles to write such a page are languishing at User:Pi zero/How to use sources without plagiary. --Pi zero (talk) 18:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Pi, I would like to try out the process you have perfected using the peer review format without actually publishing the article. Can I do that to see what you are doing? Honestly, I've been dabbling with just obvious corrections and because I knew an article would go through the process, I wasnt thorough.Crtew (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Flawed though it is, probably the place to look would be WN:Tips on reviewing articles. Down at the bottom of the page is also a link to the archived discussion thread that inspired its creation, which is pretty interesting imho. ('Perfected' — I wish. :-) --Pi zero (talk) 19:40, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Btw. Tips is mostly oriented toward reviewing synthesis (especially the checklist), and I have a feeling, even within that, there's probably stuff I do routinely that didn't make it in; I've probably internalized some things too much to notice they aren't listed. So, by all means be on the lookout for likely things to add. --Pi zero (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


Dr. Tew - I got two stories published this week!

EricaAbram samuelson (talk) 20:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Prior notice of class

Was there prior notice of this class project? -- Cirt (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Brian knew and I assumed others did too. I am a Wikipedia Fellow and Wikipedia has a Wikipedia Education Program where instructors work with Wikipedians in a formal way. Wikinews doesn't have that formal entry and so I communicated early on with Brian. Crtew (talk) 03:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
It would've been best to post this at the beginning at WN:AAA and Wikinews:Water cooler, and not just notify individual users. There's been a problem on some of these articles of edits that move failed reviewed articles back to "review" from "develop", with nothing substantively done to address the issues of the failed review. -- Cirt (talk) 03:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer availability

I see you've submitted an article on the Trayvon Martin story with collaboration from a number of students. This is very cool. So you know, it's not clear whether I'll be doing any reviewing at all in the near future. My father was ill after supper tonight, and died a few hours later. I expect to fall apart completely soon. (Sorry to burden you with that explanation, but it also didn't seem right not to explain.) --Pi zero (talk) 05:45, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

re Hooker photo

It was not uploaded with that license. It was uploaded with "PD-USGov", which it was not. -- Cirt (talk) 05:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to re-upload with the proper license. -- Cirt (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification! Crtew (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Peruvians

Hmm... I think that both the Chilean and Peruvian governments are the kings of populism. What else could get these countries onto the spotlight? The "rescue" of some miners. It's not that I'm, like, devaluing the rescue effort of both countries in each rescue, it's just that it seems to me too fictional. That's it. Diego Grez (talk) 23:37, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I know what you mean. It's a real event that is turned into a pseudo-event to make the leader look good. And, of course, the publicity becomes one side of the real story about trapped workers. It was played out so much like the Chilean event without the length and amount of fanfare.Crtew (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


If a publish a news, can I make any additions in it tomorrow? Watti Renew (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

No, once it is published, then only minimal changes like spelling and commas and such can be made. Do you want me to look in a bit?Crtew (talk) 18:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for this info. My intention was to write in the Wikinews about the actual news, mainly from Finland, that deserve notice. The problems are that my edit time is limited and every peace of news is on-going. This means that we get every day more details. Nevertheless, Wikinews is better than Wikipedia for detailed news like this, is it not? How many days can I edit one peace of news to make it fixed? Does it get any actual notice this way? Should I rather write in Finnish? My intention is to have more attention for the news in the English news. This weekend I am again mostly or all away. If I fix these on Monday-Wednesday as I can, ok?
Watti Renew (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
As you may notice, I keep working on these. I try to be ready tomorrow, ok? Help with grammar is always wellcomed. Watti Renew (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Crtew, your help is wellcomed. I want to published these now. I get angry. In my opinion Wikinews is stealing my time. As I see it, I do my best but receive excuses to hide the news I have written. I don't think, you will never receive here new editors of any nationality if your requests are so high. I can not help it if I find no more good references that I find reliable and neutral. Wikinews is not Wikipedia. This should be enough. This ruins my efforts in other issues. I wonder, if it is the intention? Watti Renew (talk) 14:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


I'm interested in attending wikimania. Just now i can give a (only) 30% probability, you will see me there. --Itu (talk) 18:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)


As I'm sure you're aware, Pizero is suffering from carrying the brunt of our reviewing load.

I've been made aware you're not 100% confident you could take on the task, but I'd like to ask you to look at where you feel you'd need to work on getting up-to-speed. Yes, reviewing your students' work might be a CoI, but if you could help with the work of others it would allow other reviewers to concentrate on student work. --Brian McNeil / talk 13:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I would accepet a nomination for reviewer on the stipulation that it would be a standing COI for me to hit the publish button on any student of mine as that relationship would already constitute "involvement." Crtew (talk) 05:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made a nomination at WN:FR/RFP. All it needs is your acceptance, if of course you do accept. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Fracking interview

Hey there. A few of us were discussing on IRC about accepting the fracking interview. We were discussing the trustworthiness issue, and we figured we could readily trust your student because the class has proven itself trustworthy as a unit. However, we wanted to check with you that you also thought everything was above-board with that student, for extra sureness. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

BRS, Yes, the interview with Paul Doss by my student was above board. I did confirm it with Paul. Paul looked at the story as its now posted, and told me it captured what he said correctly. So I don't see any problem with it. I've encouraged my student to emphasize the wastewater issue after I saw the first draft, which he has done.

Since you're asking me, I should say that on my part, there is a COI as Paul is a friend of mine (small world). However, he's not a friend of my student, and my student most likely wouldn't have known that Paul is a friend of mine, and I didn't have anything to do with the interview. Crtew (talk) 19:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Briefs etc.

  • There was a hiccup in the script review.
  • I'll be gone for some large part of the day tomorrow, from bright-and-early in the morning until some indefinite time in the afternoon (typically runs until near supper time).
  • You might consider archiving some of this talk page; I manually archive my user talk page, for thoughtful control.

--Pi zero (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Reviewer promotion

Well, you've got both experience of pushing the lines here (a good thing), and a heap of pro experience... So to keep us even more on our toes, you're now a reviewer. A standard new reviewer message is here (I don't like it much but the info's useful) and WN:Tips on reviewing articles is handy to check out too. Best, Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you BRS Crtew (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Albert Pujols first homer with the Angels' article

Thank you for improving my baseball article. I seem you have an interest in politics and sci-tech; is it your first sports' article creation/improvement? Ernestogon (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

You've got me pegged! :D I could hardly believe I actually wrote a sports article the other day with another writer here at Wikinews on the Kentucky Derby. Crtew (talk) 14:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

{{under review}}

As you may have noted by now, {{under review}} doesn't put the article in Category:Review, so if you replace {{review}} with {{under review}} the article is removed from the review queue and you don't get a review tab for it. That comes in handy when one really intends to remove the article from the queue while working on it (as I do when reviewing the scripts for the weekly briefs), but usually one wants to add {{under review}} in front of {{review}} rather than replacing it. --Pi zero (talk) 02:17, 14 May 2012 (UTC)



How are you finding doing review work? --Brian McNeil / talk 09:12, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Changing an article published less than 24 hours ago

Perhaps you've already gotten the message, but I'm leaving it here too, in case. Edit the article and don't self-sight; that submits the change for review by an independent reviewer (such as, in this case, me). Suggest on the talk page an accompanying rename. From what you've said, the change would be physically small and so the edit could be prepared in little time, and review wouldn't take long either. This could have been fixed by now. --Pi zero (talk) 23:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for submitting the changes incrementally; it helped make the process run smoothly. (It's a recognized weakness of flaggedrevs, for our purposes, that changes to a published article can only be reviewed in chronological order, creating a logistical tangle when review of an earlier change involves copyedits that appear chronologically after later changes.) --Pi zero (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

PR site

There isn't any wedding photo on Wikimedia Commons. What is the PR site? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 21:02, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

It would be better to have a photo of the wedding couple and I just wanted to see if we had any quick alternative, even if it's fair use. I double checked the Facebook PR site myself: . As a PR site, Facebook works in a nontraditional way. They develop relationships by feeding select news organizations with private scoops, which is a way of making journalists beholden and, IMHO, leads to NPOV reporting. But at least we checked. Crtew (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with editing the article. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 22:08, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

News briefs: May 26, 2012

Oops. There's a flub in the Raw Opals story; namely, "Raw Opals" is a pun, not the nickname of the team. --Pi zero (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


I suspect you're finding this... I want to say "frustrating", but suspect that's too mild a word. We'll say "frustrating". I've been seven hours straight on that article (it's now 5am local here), so I'm also finding it "frustrating". I'm practically pulling my hair out over it. I wouldn't even submit my review, but just put the comments on the talk page and leave it on the queue, if the two reviewers I'd most like to turn it over to at this point weren't unavailable atm. --Pi zero (talk) 09:05, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Very cool article, btw. --Pi zero (talk) 01:04, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Pi, Thanks for your hard work on editing the article and putting up with me while I learned the ropes of documenting the notes for the process. The next one will be easier because it's based on recorded audio interviews that I conducted at a park in Phoenix. Minus the observation. Crtew (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

News briefs: June 3, 2012

Just to be sure you don't miss it: I noted on the article talk, an inaccuracy in the Mubarak brief. --Pi zero (talk) 04:53, 4 June 2012 (UTC)


for now to User:Crtew/Will the sun set on Valley of the Sunflowers? --Pi zero (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikinews:Paralympic Games

Can you provide feedback on Wikinews:Paralympic Games to improve this? I'd like to try to engage some of the sport community on Wikipedia and request help, along with asking a few Wikinews contributors to commit to reviewing during the Paralympics so things can be done as timely manner as possible. If we aren't able to get a commitment, we might have some problems. :( Anyway, feedback and help asking Wikinewsies for help would be much appreciated.--LauraHale (talk) 05:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for reviewing and other assistance

Hi. Next week is the start of the IPC Alpine Skiing World Championships and two Wikinewies will be attending to cover the para-alpine skiing ahead of the 2014 Winter Paralympics . This is part of an effort outlined at Wikinews:IPC Alpine Ski World Championships. Immediately following this event, there will be a Meetup in Barcelona where Wikinews, the Paralympics and efforts to similar sport coverage will be discussed. At the moment, there are only two active reviewers on a daily basis. Demonstrating an ability to get reviews for these types of events done quickly is important for Wikinews credibility and gaining access to these types of events. I would really appreciate it if you could sign up on the IPC World Championship page to review, promote articles published during this period, assist in translating these articles into another language or attend the meetup in Barcelona. Thanks. --LauraHale (talk) 09:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikinews Writing contest 2013 is here. :) Please sign up to participate?

We've created the Wikinews:Writing contest 2013, which will start on April 1 and end on June 1. It is modeled on the successful 2010 contest. Unlike the previous version, points are available for people who conduct reviews. (With a University of Wollongong class currently contributing articles, extra assistance is appreciated at this time.) It presents a great incentive for you to renew your reviewing chops, contribute some original reporting not being done by the main stream media, and write some synthesis articles on topics that could use more attention. People should be around to review to prevent a backlog if you just want to write, and several reviewers have access to scoop to make it easier to review any original reporting you do. If you are interested in signing up, please do so on Wikinews:Writing contest 2013/entrants. There is at least one prize on offer for the winner along with the opportunity to earn some barn stars as a way of thanking you for your participation. :D --LauraHale (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The Wikinewsie Group

  • I'd hope you could be persuaded to sign-up to this. The discussion is, I think, quite interesting; and, whilst my key objective is Wikinews as a more-professional, more widely-recognised media outlet, the "throw technology at the problem" solutions being bandied about would certainly make contributing a good-deal easier for any students assigned to do so as coursework. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

A/V content

just reviewing the water cooler, and scratching my head about our options in supporting students who're looking to submit audio or video content.

If you can get a little tech assistance at the university, it should be possible to take a lot of the technical challenges out of the process. By that, I mean the fiddle of getting media into OGV or OGG formats. It'd likely be a half-day's work for someone in IT to set up the same sort of support back-end for that as I did for the Paralympics coverage. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Brian McNeil, I actually use the exact same converter that Laura Hale suggested! That way we can use the resources here at the university and convert our files into the proper OGG or OGV formats. It worked like a charm last time. Students are starting to sign up for my spring course. I wish I had been able to teach it last spring but I was busy with other duties.
One other issue: Am I still an editor at Wikinews or do I need to reapply? That happened at the very end of our last course here and too late for it to make any impact whatsoever. My recollection is that people saw that I had the experience and could edit other contributors while the Wikinews editors volunteering at any time could focus on editing my students work in the flow and not diminish the overall editing resources at Wikinews. Of course, I would still adhere to my pledge NEVER EVER to use the bit for one of my students to publish due to the obvious conflict of interest. Crtew (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
We haven't been as eager as the privilege expiry policy allows, about reducing reviewer privileges. We could, afaics, have revoked your privs any time for the past six months or so, as you haven't used the review bit since May 2012. Note the policy has a specific provision for fast-track restoration of privs —after a recommended period of reacclimation— if there's no objection raised for a couple of days. If 'twere me, I'd probably be cautious in easing back into it anyway; part of the point of the policy is that inevitably if you've been away for a while you're apt to be rusty. --Pi zero (talk) 21:46, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I agree that I am a bit rusty and will try to acclimate before my next batch of students climb onboard for the new journey! It's like a bicycle, right? :D Crtew (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I've no idea what 'converter' Laura recommended. Personally, I use a Linux toolchain end-to-end.
If the tools you're using require students to do media conversion on their machines, that's not the same as I'm suggesting. The mechanism in-use for the Paralympics was as-follows:
  • Contributor captures, rough-edits, content.
  • Contributor drops media for upload into Dropbox folder(s).
  • Linux server, with Dropbox installed, synchronises to same Dropbox folder(s).
  • Job on Linux server uploads content; where content is not OGG or OGV, it is first converted
What worked out really well with this setup was that the conversion could have a lot of computing power thrown at it, done to a high-quality, and the onward upload to Commons, Wikinews, or wherever was incredibly fast.
Now, the catch with Dropbox was a need to rent enough space to handle the media being shuffled around. I've played around a bit with ownCloud over the past few months, and it works pretty well as a substitute for Dropbox. Last I looked, they were charging a small amount for the mobile ownCloud clients, and that's it. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
Owncloud as an option is still not feasible, unless mobile applications support it as a built in application for recording and uploading. This is the standard and while I love Wikinews, I cannot afford to buy a new phone and new tablet to support Wikinews reporting. For most students, the existing tools that allow students to convert files on their laptop or desktop should work well enough to enable Commons or local Wikinews uploading. No need to complicate it as a barrier to participation. --LauraHale (talk) 10:12, 6 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Will you please take a look at ownCloud? It, as I stated, has mobile apps. And, credit me with knowing what I'm talking about, Laura; students should not have to worry about dicking with format conversion. Secondary to that, converting to OGG or OGV is a huge drain on the limited battery life of any mobile device. None of the codecs involved are supported in hardware, so this is a heavy load on the device's processor. Offloading the conversion, and applying much more computing power, is common-sense. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:29, 6 November 2013 (UTC)