User talk:Lib2know/Vuelta a España: Mikel Landa wins demanding mountain stage

Review of revision 3792730 [Not ready]

Revision 3792730 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We require two mutually independent sources to confirm the focal event and removing Wikipedia left this pretty borderline. A lot of the second paragraph is unverified; I suspect you were relying on Wikipedia for that. I reckon an official standings table must be lurking somewhere on the Internet and that would probably cover us. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 3792730 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Wikipedia is not a reliable source. We require two mutually independent sources to confirm the focal event and removing Wikipedia left this pretty borderline. A lot of the second paragraph is unverified; I suspect you were relying on Wikipedia for that. I reckon an official standings table must be lurking somewhere on the Internet and that would probably cover us. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Did you read the second paragraph? It is only four lines long and you did not name a single point which is unverified. What kind of "review" is it, where you keep mistakes as a secret?

Did you look up any of the sources? In the very first source you will find the complete and very official standings table you reckon.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lib2know (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 September 2015

@Lib2know: If you believe the reviewer may have overlooked something, you could have been polite about it. Review is a big effort, which our authorized reviewers take quite seriously. BRS was kind enough to put in the time and effort to review your article (kind both to you and to other reviewers, since we currently have a backlog of articles competing for attention on the review queue), and you respond by being rude to them? That's remarkably counterproductive; I suspect BRS isn't going to be investing any more time and effort in your article, meaning any other reviewer would have to start from scratch studying it, with the discouragement of seeing how you treated the first one. I would have thought it wouldn't need saying that one ought to be polite to someone who has made the personal investment of time and effort to review your submission. --Pi zero (talk) 21:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi PiZero, I am not sure to understand what you say. But it seems whatever a reviewer says: it is nice. Demanding things which are already fulfilled is nice. Mentioning mistakes and keep them secret is nice either. And writing an article is not nice. Because it causes work to reviewers. Writing an article is not work. Feedback on articles is nice. Feedback on a review is not nice.--Lib2know (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

By the way; maybe you can save some work to add an explicit hint to Wikinews:Cite sources that Wikipedia might not be a proper source. Thanks--Lib2know (talk) 21:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

You many not be sure, by I'm quite confident you don't understand what I say. --Pi zero (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I understood i you called me rude, which I don't agree at all. I had some detailed questions about a revue. The questions result of vague and in obvious parts wrong demands. My opinion if I feel the review itself was rude or discouraging i keep with me as well as my opinion about anyone in person. Then you were talking about the personality of someone (BRS?) and what he might do or do not in the future. So as far as i understand the conclusion is in short:

* maybe still existing points with missing verifiability (which i can't find) won't be named,

* the review is abandoned now,

* anyway the status won't be set back to {{review}},

* the article will age until obsolete without being reviewed,

* improvements in quality since my first article (admitted: very weak and too long) will be ignored,

* working out the article was a waste.--Lib2know (talk) 10:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You accused the reviewer, in an inflammatory way, of incompetence and of not bothering to try to do the review properly. It's not particularly plausible the reviewer would be those things, and far more plausible you might have misunderstood the review comments (cf. WN:Never assume); and even if the reviewer had made a mistake (or worse) there's no reasonable way to interpret your comments as being in a spirit of collaboration with a team-mate rather than an assault against someone you're treating as an enemy. It would have been easy for you to have politely provided information and asked questions, and common sense would have indicated adopting such a strategy rather than what you did. If you think an outburst such as you made is socially acceptable behavior, you've got a lot to learn about living in society. BRS instantly took offense, nor do I disagree with their interpretation, and I was pretty hurt too because before untertaking the review BRS had asked what I remembered about you, and I gave you a positive recommendation, so that your bad behavior also reflected badly on me.

Setting the status back to {{review}} would be for you to do after addressing the reviewer's concerns. If you don't know what the problem was, and rather than treating the reviewer as a colleague and asking for clarification you insulted them and drove them away, that's going to make it pretty hard to address their concerns and unlikely you'll find another reviewer willing to take on the article. The situation is entirely of your making — BRS felt at the time of the review, as I recall, quite positive about the article, figuring it wouldn't take much to fix it up and get it published, a positive attitude you wiped out. --Pi zero (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Some words you use about me: inflammatory, incompetence, bothering, assault, enemy, offence. I did not say anything to cause harsh words like that and i don't use them. WN:Never assume might be valid to protect me either from words like that. Again: I don't talk about what I think of any ones personality here. It was you.

The review does not sound like team work: In opposite of what you both were talking about the article behind the scenes the review contained nothing positive. From the beginning until the last word it distinguishes in "We (require ...)" and "(you do something to) cover us" excluding me from the team(work). Then I was "suspected to rely on" anything like a defendant (WN:Never assume ?). "lots of unverified" is not helpful cause vague (not detailed), derogatory and discouraging without need. The team loyalty feels to me high percentage on reviewers side and low percentage on writers side, focusing on interpretation of my words and ignoring where it started. That even doesn't feel like a team.

My question can be very easy interpreted as: (1) "Are you really sure the first link does not lead to the classification? (in my opinion it is the daily and overall classification on one page and I checked it over and over) "; (2) "Can you name all the lots of points of missing verifiability in paragraph 2 to allow fixing it? (which might be not too much since the paragraph is very short; but i think "lots of" was not a decent neither team working clause)" - Even if your interpretations assume different.

I ask you to calm down in use of language about me and focus on the words written, not interpreted. And if you like judging here (i doubt it is the right place) take some distance to see it fair.

Finally i mention my concerns as a writer on a review seem not not to be accepted at all while I should guess on vague and even mistaken concerns and my questions for details of the review keep refused.--Lib2know (talk) 12:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Answer to the review, second try

Dear reviewer, i thank you so much for your time and effort to write this polite and great review. To make really the best of it I would like to ask if you can give me a little hint. As you said there are lots of points not verifiable in the second paragraph. I apologize for my mistakes. But since i am a beginner i can't find them.

1. Would you kindly give a hint about one of this issues? I wouldn't hesitate to work that out to your full satisfaction. Then, if you permit, i will ask for the second issue and work it out and so on until all of those many points are verified. I'll keep track and report the complete list of unverified points. So finally I will have the full feedback without expecting it in the review.
2. About the missing official standings table i am very sorry. I guess it is already there but as a typical beginner i hided it by mistake in the first source (cryptically) called "classification stage 11". And then unfortunately the webpage needs to be scrolled. I regret to confront you with that stuff but i would be thankful you look it up again and maybe accept it generously as a source.
3. In spite i read the guidelines over and over i missed the passage when Wikipedia was included in the non sources list. Even i did not find a passage which describes indirectly it has to be excluded. Maybe Wikinews: Cyte sources contains it but i couldn't find. Would you kindly give a link for further reading?

I assure you i will stay online waiting for any word of you and give it all to fulfil any suggestion to 100%. In the end i want to thank you for all he checked boxes in the review. And again, excuse me for the deep falling downs on verifiability and my limited understanding of each single point you have on mind where i need to ask for.--Lib2know (talk) 11:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3799932 [Not ready]

Revision 3799932 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 10:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: stale; focal event was five days ago, even most recent source is four days ago Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 3799932 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 10:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: stale; focal event was five days ago, even most recent source is four days ago Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

ok, how can it be fixed? As a first try i worked out two facts including sources which occurred more recently and as a direct follow up to the focal event. But it is complicated: date would have to be changed, "yesterday" in the first sentence.

An alternative i suggest, is, to publish it late as an exception, considering the history of the talk which went wrong (probably in misunderstanding each other) and my small Wikinews experience as a writer (It was only the second article). In that case it probably would never appear on the front page. But at least it wouldn't be a waste. Sports and especially cycling fans can find out later Wikinews is a good medium to report on that subjects.--Lib2know (talk) 09:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3802921 [Not ready]

Revision 3802921 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: This is now stale. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 3802921 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: This is now stale. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

I will move that for preparing an interview on the special meaning of that stage for the Vuelta this year. If there is anyone willing to review a short interview of more ore less 6 questions please join here. --Lib2know (talk) 09:25, 10 September 2015 (UTC) ː Since there was no further interest i moved it and will reuse it later.--Lib2know (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2015 (UTC)