Talk:Hickenlooper ends US presidential bid, senate run possible

Image
There is a seemingly more attractive image, File:John Hickenlooper - 48260057156.jpg? In it the guy at least faces the camera. --Gryllida (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ --DannyS712 (talk) 05:01, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

How
Is 'speculation emerged' clarified anywhere in the article? It's not clear to me how this speculation was delivered. --Gryllida (talk) 04:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've clarified that it refers to CNN's report based on unnamed sources. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4500962 [Not ready]

 * - I've clarified that its rumors that emerged Wednesday, based on CNN's unnamed sources. I wrote "speculation emerged" because it wasn't confirmed by Hickenlooper. --DannyS712 (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Comment
If you will allow what I will call veteran tips, I will offer some advice which I think would have made this article publishable. Wikinews has always been very strict when it comes to future events. In this case, I would have attributed to sources already in the title: "Sources say Hickenlooper will end US presidential campaign in favor of a senate run" or something like that. You should have never framed the information as "rumor" or "speculation". I have read all three sources and that is not what this is. CNN and NBC are the ones saying this will happen, so I'll ignore NYT. CNN spoke to no fewer than three members of the Democratic party and NBC independently spoke to one. These details should have been stressed in the article. This is not idle speculation by some anonymous person looking at poll numbers. Instead, these are statements made by people in a position to have inside information, whose identities are known to CNN and NBC, but spoke on condition of not being named. You have to convey that there is good reason to believe the information and go into why. NYT provides additional backup, because just a day before, they had spoken to four (if I recall) Democrats which had stated this strategy was already under consideration before the CNN and NBC stories. In conclusion: Attribute, attribute, attribute!

All that being said, I am not sure of the overall value of Wikinews getting this story published, what? twelve hours before the actual event. It puts pressure on us to publish a follow-up, which doesn't always happen. In case he doesn't drop out, we could look like idiots with the article on our front page for more than a week (while over at CNN it would get buried in less than half a news cycle). Cheers, --SVTCobra 11:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for the feedback. I decided to just wait and update the story after the rumor was confirmed, which it has been. --DannyS712 (talk) 23:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Dear Danny
I hope I didn't upset you too much by basically re-writing the article. I did not do it to shit on you or your writing style. I am, however, familiar with stories which carry from one day to the next. (I had one going for two weeks before published). The biggest bottleneck (and I am sure you already know this) is the review process. As writers, we should do our very best to make that job as easy as possible. This includes using reliable sources.  may be good for statistical analysis but for broader news they are just a synthesis site like us. I also understand the urge to cling to the sources you used yesterday. But if they are repeated in the new sources, it's just "why?" for the reviewer. If you just add new sources without verifying they confirm what you wrote yesterday, that's not helpful either.

I may have gone a little extreme on the "inverted pyramid", but I think it holds up. And yes, again, I will apologize for rewriting an article. It's just my best tool for teaching and/or giving examples. Cheers, --SVTCobra 02:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4501425 [Passed]

 * thanks so much. Originally, the quote did indeed repeat something already quoted in the body, but I guess removed that during their development. Is it okay if I re-add the quote in the body, as well as the pull quote? --DannyS712 (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The quote is in the body; I transmuted the LeftQuote into a paragraph in the stream of the text. If you want to try re-adding the pull-quote half of it, that might work. --Pi zero (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I've made the change I was imagining - can you take a look? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2019 (UTC)