Wikinews:Article review

see also: Wikinews:Quality over Quantity, ...

What if your article is never reviewed?

What do you do if an article has never got reviewed? --carlosar

I think the key here is to make sure every article gets the dev and review tags put on them, during the process of creation. Then, if an article is never reviewed (more likely now, as there are only a few editors), it can go as reviewed after 8 hours and be added to all the sites. Hopefully with more editors, this will be less of a problem. Lyellin 20:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are too many (reviewed)s on the Main Page. Is it necessary to include it? Guaka 23:51, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm having fun with the Politics and conflicts thingy... Don't hesitate to comment or improve. :) Guaka 00:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The point of the "reviewed" tag is as follows. Jimmy Wales asked me that we should make it clear at this stage that the review procedure is not yet policy, and allow people to completely ignore it, so we can experiment freely with different processes. I'm not sure I agree with him - I would prefer to just evolve the existing process - but, as this is the situation, I would at least like to get an untainted empirical data set if at all possible, so I want to know for each story whether it has gone through the review process, preferably on the index pages.

We could do it in the reverse fashion by tagging all articles which have not been reviewed. That might be harder to follow, though. If nothing else helps, we could just add all reviewed articles to Category:Reviewed articles.--Eloquence 00:39, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the main page should look good. I think tagging unreviewed articles is a better option. Guaka 00:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed Lankiveil 06:12, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What if an article is published with misinformation?

I believe the recently published article Soldiers sue U.S. government over 'stop-loss' policy contains misinformation. I detail the problem on its discussion page. The question is what to do about it now? I don't think it's a good idea to remove a published article, nor quietly change its contents. Should corrections me made at the end of the article? In the meantime, should there be a note that the contents are disputed? - TalkHard 11:17, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well the article was put back in review. But for the future, what is the policy for when an article is published with misinformation? - TalkHard 11:52, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A wiki record is expected to be edited. Anyone who wants to see the history of the edits can see them. This is the main cool thing about wikinews -- an specific news item can actually get better (more accurate, more comprehensive) over time --jabelar 15:08, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You can say what you think at the Discussion page. Review the article, say what you think it is wrong. --Carlosar 14:56, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but what is the policy for making changes to an article after it has been published. In the article I mention, it was published, then put back in review, then someone decided to ignore my objections and publish it again anyway, then there were edits made after it was published. Completely unprofessional. We need a standard policy to resolve disputes after an article is published and to change info after an article is published. - TalkHard 00:25, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't know what to do exactly. I have put one such article at the Deletion request page but some of the authors did not liked.So, I don't know what to do. -- Carlosar 02:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Make corrections to the article, but follow the guidelines on the article stages page, which have you put the changes you made down on the bottom of the article. Lyellin 02:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What's so unprofessional about a news story being put back into review? If the facts change because new information emerges, shouldn't that require another review process? In the case you cite, I think the problme was your objections were ignored. Did you make changes to the article in question to correct the information? I think what jabelar said is right on. News is not something set in stone. Its information, and information changes all the time.--Herda05 02:56, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Articles are poorly reviewed

I think the articles are been poorly reviewed. I did not like some articles which have passed reviwed. I am having problems even with some of my own articles because almost nobody reads them, so I cannot know if I have had written something wrong by mistake. I think this happens because Wikinews is still very small.-- Carlosar 02:28, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree completely. Currently first article posted under recent news on the front page is horrible. There are currently factual errors in it (two full paragraphs of wrong information even after other stuff was corrected), it confuses the issue it talks about, was created without even looking at the source material, and misses information that would have been extremely interesting.

Sure things would be better if Wikinews was larger, but we should realize that Wikinews can be valuable even with the number of people we have now. But to be valuable at this point, we need to focus on quality, not quantity. There are far more articles being created than can possibly be covered by the number of people we have. Having a few paragraph summary on something that has already been covered better by everyone does nothing for this project at this point in time. It's fine to have the goal of covering everything in the future, but for now it is a waste of manpower to spend 5 seconds on an article like Mike Tyson arrested for jumping on car hood. But a well written article that is interesting and informative makes Wikinews valuable now. An article that is covered better here than anywhere else makes us valuable now. An article on something that is not covered by the mass media is valuable now. Well written articles like these that are valuable on their own merit, and not just as a piece of a larger picture, will make this site worth coming to and worth contributing to. These articles will draw people to the site as they are posted around the Internet. - TalkHard 03:14, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. If you have plenty of news articles, mostly incomplete or poorly presented, people will turn away in a heartbeat. If you have only a few, but exceptionally written, you'll establish a (hopefully) growing reader base, and they'll be motivated to contribute over time.

I wrote up a piece on this at Wikinews:Quality over Quantity. All feedback is appreciated. - TalkHard 13:09, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

hi, same situation over here. I'm a first time poster here in en.wikinews and my news YouTube experiments with HD videos hadn't been touched for 3 days now, also I'm using the colarboration page and asking what to do next. Normally I'm sendig in news for de.wikinews and I thought they are very slow, but none of my texts there took more than 2 days for the first review and nroamllay it's finished after 3. I'm not used to your habits here and I don't find help pages for it. I want to do it my own, but I want to stick to your rules, but where to I find the to do list and checkpoints, like "1. publish, 2. review, 3. wait, 4. put it on the front page and finish". greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 10:22, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did notice you're responding to a four year old discussion? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I did, and the topic still fits to my problem right now. the help pages don't tell my where to find reviewers or asking editors to do so. greets, --Andreas -horn- Hornig (talk) 11:53, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]