Talk:CanJet Flight 918 hijacked

Now wouldn't it be nice if our licence allowed taking material from Wikipedia - which might come a step closer soon! Huzzah! Sean Heron (talk) 12:49, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What do you mean? The text is different. The sources are the same though. Considering that I wrote some of the Wikipedia article, I should know that the text is different. 70.29.213.241 12:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What I meant is that it would be nice if we could just copy the text from the Wikipedia article, and work from that. I guess it was not very related to working on the article, so somewhat ill placed here, sorry. I've asked some questions on your talk page, by the way. Regards Sean Heron (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was away editting at Wikipedia, the article about the hijacking. 70.29.213.241 15:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hate to break it to you guys, the wikipedia licesne change does not bring us any closer. (in fact it is unlikley that it will ever become close enough, as the copyright scheme wikipedia uses is fundamentally different (think bsd vs gpl) from ours. This is not neccesarily a bad thing, as we have different needs that 'pedia. Bawolff ☺☻ 02:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Unused sources




Review
I started wanting to review the article - but have now reworked it a good bit. So I won't be doing the final review, as I'm no longer an "uninvolved" editor. However I'll share what I thought the review passed on - please note I've addressed the "failed" point, and am now of the opinion that the article should pass it's review.

OR?
The article has been tagged with original, but I don't see any reporting notes on this page. tempo divalse  15:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I, as the initial author, didn't do any original reporting. 70.29.213.241 15:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry - my bad. Perhaps I'm mistaken with the policy, but for some of the stuff I checked (and made changes to where necessary), I was referring to the CanJet press release. My understanding is that inserting information from press releases is viewed as original reporting (and yes, I'll happily admit it is very minimal here, and I could take the information from elsewhere just as easily). I'm happy with removing the original template again, I just assumed it needed to be placed. Sean Heron (talk) 16:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Review #2

 * This article really wasn't ready for publishing. No infobox, insufficient links, Wikipedia box not at the sources section, sources used incorrect date format. Van der Hoorn (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow - I'm certainly happy you polished up the article like that, and I agree it'd be preferable for that to happen before publishing. But none of those points (and not all of them together either) would for me merit a failed article review. Style for me refers to the style of the articles text - not the frills, though I'm happy to admit the visual representation is important as well.


 * My impression is that we're already being pretty thorough with article reviews (which is a good thing), but this does mean that its taking a while till articles get published (which is regretable) - I don't think setting a perfectionist benchmark makes sense in that situation, (as long as the non-perfectionist one doesn't tarnish our journalistic integrity). Regards - Sean Heron (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Sean - infobox and the rest is very important, and should definitly be included as needed, but i don't think its a reason to stop an article getting out the door. (unless its heidious). Bawolff ☺☻ 02:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, too: as long as article content is good (NPOV, style, etc.), then there is no reason not to pass the review -- formatting, unless it looks truly horrendous, is of a secondary concern, and in most cases, can easily be fixed in a few seconds by the article's reviewer. tempo divalse  02:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)