Style: Not ready: Per 'encouragement' left on user's talk page, this misses a lot of key points. Some detailed in the comments field of the review.
Comments by reviewer:
Article has absolutely no Wikilinks; it references a lot of stuff where we have categoriews, or Wikipedia has entries, but does not use [[w:Whatever]] or {{w:Whatever}} for them.
Lede is not a lede; it could never be used as the intro/summary on the main page.
Active voice. When you learn to use it, you'll wonder why it isn't drummed into people in their English classes.
Doesn't look irrideemable, but as part of the "Wikimedians to the Games" contributions needs to be closer to what will be published; copyedit on stuff like this takes at least as long as fact-checking, we need people who can do the majority of the sub-editing work themselves.
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.
Style: Not ready: Per 'encouragement' left on user's talk page, this misses a lot of key points. Some detailed in the comments field of the review.
Comments by reviewer:
Article has absolutely no Wikilinks; it references a lot of stuff where we have categoriews, or Wikipedia has entries, but does not use [[w:Whatever]] or {{w:Whatever}} for them.
Lede is not a lede; it could never be used as the intro/summary on the main page.
Active voice. When you learn to use it, you'll wonder why it isn't drummed into people in their English classes.
Doesn't look irrideemable, but as part of the "Wikimedians to the Games" contributions needs to be closer to what will be published; copyedit on stuff like this takes at least as long as fact-checking, we need people who can do the majority of the sub-editing work themselves.
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.
Executive summary: I'm wondering if this is entirely synthesis. Whether it is or isn't, it appears to be missing some needed sourcing information, of one or another kind. And unless it has some serious OR in it, it probably hasn't been fresh for some time (possibly since before it was last submitted for review?). (I'm only officially not-ready'ing the article on the freshness issue, though)
It apears to me (i.e., unless I've missed something) this is not fresh. The selection was announced on the sixth, I take it, and the article wasn't written until three days later. [...] Synthesis articles have a very short window of freshness, typically two-to-three days from the event. Additional information coming to light can extend that clock, up to seven days from the original event — but it has to be actually newly come to light, not just stuff published on a later date that had already come to light earlier.
It's now [two] days after the most recent sources. [...] With the event itself [five] days old, one wouldn't tend to be overly generous on the freshening power of new information come to light. That would be if there were any new information come to light on the 9th.
All information in a Wikinews article must be verifiable from provided sources (excepting really obvious stuff, on the order of "Sydney is in Australia" :-). Given the freshness problem, I did not attempt a full source-check, but I did do a quick spot-check; given the sources, I wondered about the historical stuff in the first paragraph. It isn't apparent to me that the cited sources say anything about how many Tasmanians were at the 2000, 2004, and 2008 games. (Did I miss it somewhere?)
There should be corroboration ('two mutually independent trust-worthy sources') for the focal event; are there actually two sources for the selection, here?
Original reporting is a different creature, but most of what I've said above applies in some form. WN:OR. It involves detailed OR notes, so still everything is verifiable; it requires that we have confidence in the reporter (often, being vouched for by an already-reputable Wikinewsie can help with this, at least up to a point :-); and depending on the nature of the OR, it may extend freshness to some degree.
I'm not really looking at style issues, such as the lede, in this review. I do note the use of future tense (see WN:SG#Reporting on future events), and that the headline is a bit difficult for an international audience since they won't know what a Tassie is (which could serve as an attention-getter, but It may not leap out at them from reading the article, either).
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.
Executive summary: I'm wondering if this is entirely synthesis. Whether it is or isn't, it appears to be missing some needed sourcing information, of one or another kind. And unless it has some serious OR in it, it probably hasn't been fresh for some time (possibly since before it was last submitted for review?). (I'm only officially not-ready'ing the article on the freshness issue, though)
It apears to me (i.e., unless I've missed something) this is not fresh. The selection was announced on the sixth, I take it, and the article wasn't written until three days later. [...] Synthesis articles have a very short window of freshness, typically two-to-three days from the event. Additional information coming to light can extend that clock, up to seven days from the original event — but it has to be actually newly come to light, not just stuff published on a later date that had already come to light earlier.
It's now [two] days after the most recent sources. [...] With the event itself [five] days old, one wouldn't tend to be overly generous on the freshening power of new information come to light. That would be if there were any new information come to light on the 9th.
All information in a Wikinews article must be verifiable from provided sources (excepting really obvious stuff, on the order of "Sydney is in Australia" :-). Given the freshness problem, I did not attempt a full source-check, but I did do a quick spot-check; given the sources, I wondered about the historical stuff in the first paragraph. It isn't apparent to me that the cited sources say anything about how many Tasmanians were at the 2000, 2004, and 2008 games. (Did I miss it somewhere?)
There should be corroboration ('two mutually independent trust-worthy sources') for the focal event; are there actually two sources for the selection, here?
Original reporting is a different creature, but most of what I've said above applies in some form. WN:OR. It involves detailed OR notes, so still everything is verifiable; it requires that we have confidence in the reporter (often, being vouched for by an already-reputable Wikinewsie can help with this, at least up to a point :-); and depending on the nature of the OR, it may extend freshness to some degree.
I'm not really looking at style issues, such as the lede, in this review. I do note the use of future tense (see WN:SG#Reporting on future events), and that the headline is a bit difficult for an international audience since they won't know what a Tassie is (which could serve as an attention-getter, but It may not leap out at them from reading the article, either).
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.
w:Mark Jamieson has been announced as part of the cycling team. Is he Taswegian enough? He is/was a resident; born in VIC. Is three the highest number of tassies ever included in the team? If he is claimed by Tasmanian, this story could be revised a bit to mention Mark Jamieson, which would make it a 'fresh' story. John Vandenberg (talk) 12:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
