Talk:Mass graves of thousands of ISIL victims found, UN reports

Review of revision 4444417 [Not ready]
please read the CNN source again. I just double-checked and Suki Nagra is indeed quoted there. Is it possible that the link somehow sends us to different versions of the article?TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Turns out, the web browser I usually use to access sources didn't show most of the content of the CNN article (because it wasn't allowing javascript to run; I do that deliberately because some of the more aggressive news sites exercise javascript so aggressively that that they can crash my browser, or even my laptop, rather like a malware site; I'll try whitelisting javascript for CNN, so I can keep using that browser). --Pi zero (talk) 00:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I attempted to re-write the article more in my own words. I admit that the description of the victims—“women, children, and the elderly”—is still probably too similar to the source. Should I quote it instead? I feel the information is too important to the story to simply cut out, but I do not know any way else to describe them.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't direct-quote a source unless it becomes part of the story (though we can quote someone who's legitimately part of the story based on a quote from them provided by a source). The particular phrase you're talking about occurs, with slightly variations, in all three sources, and my guess is that they're all using words from the UN report.  So in that particular case it's probably not something to worry too much about &mdash; although sometimes when multiple sources use the same wording like that it's because they're all paying for the right to draw on material from some common wire service, and in that situation we'd particularly want to avoid that wording. --Pi zero (talk) 01:48, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the legwork. I think with my next article I will take more time to focus on format and word choice. I often feel I am rushing to get the story out for review, but am needlessly sacrificing quality. I will continue to work on that.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That is definitely a thing on Wikinews. Review is our bottleneck, our limiting reagent, and you should sacrifice some quality to get the article ready in time.  What I do is get the draft good enough, I use the word "presentable," and then hit "review" and then if I think of any improvements later, I use the  to add them. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't altogether endorse that phrasing. Not so much quality sacrificed, rather priorities chosen &mdash; like having a limited weight allowance when rapidly packing for a trip (yet another imperfect, but not unuseful, metaphor).  With enough practice, one can get very good at it. --Pi zero (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Also a good way to put it. Wikipedia has no deadline and Wikinews does. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

headline
Shouldn't the headline mention "Iraq"? The lede mentions some sites were in Iraq. The lead template image makes no sense othewise, and the choice of infobox. •–• 09:04, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite right, it would have been better to mention Iraq in the headline. Not an error as such, thus nothing to correct, but definitely one of those do-better-going-forward things.  (Also something to consider in imagining assistant-design.) --Pi zero (talk) 11:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)