Talk:National Rugby League Women in League Round celebrates sons
Journalist notes
This is based on looking at things like Facebook, various pages about this and an understanding based on my thesis work. Most sources are inline referenced. There is a mild neutrality fear here. I admit that I badly may have an agenda of saying "Look how sexist the NRL is being. Celebrate women? Ha. I see lots of talk about players saying how great women are but very few are named. I see more information on buying pink socks." I was inspired to do this story after reading the piece in the Canberra Times... and I know this is a criticism as I have seen it on the news, but it does not get much traction. Thus yeah, I promise not to be offended if it is not passed on neutrality grounds given that I know this is a possibility. --LauraHale (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Review of revision 1899513 [Passed]
 |
Revision 1899513 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 1899513 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Questions regarding article
How did this get published so quickly? You are writing about an event that began yesterday, so not sure about the newsworthiness and you don't clarify the theme "sons" I was a little confused about that point. You don't mention when the initiative started or go into any detail about what the clubs are doing in terms of initiatives. I have been writing league articles trying to get published and the editors are too harsh yet something like this gets published even though it's missing basic details. Anyway I'm pretty sure my future employer won't regard Wikinews as a reputable site to have work published —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.130.37.84 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 16 May 2013
- Presumably you didn't look at the article history before claiming this was published quickly.
- A string search for the word son easily turns up where that theme is addressed later in the article. --Pi zero (talk) 00:50, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Quickly here is defined as three days. The newsworthy aspect was saved mostly because the Facebook material was still relevant, and because the round started one day after the article was published. (It was submitted about two days before hand). There was absolutely no rush to publish, and this was never going to be an easy article to review because of the need for neutrality. (Which was visibly addressed based on comments on IRC, and can be seen in the edit history where things were neutralized. And then it sat and sat and sat.) At least two or three other stories were published between when this was submitted and when it was reviewed. --LauraHale (talk) 00:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh. And on the employer front, your future employer might not be impressed (that as a student, you had problems with following a style guide, verifying facts, reporting neutrally) but getting published on Wikinews and the opportunities Wikinews has provided me to do sport reporting have gotten me two jobs. Go figure. --LauraHale (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2013 (UTC)