Talk:Sea lions take over dock at Moss Landing, California

It is original reporting. I've been there and took images myself--Mbz1 - (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend you read Original reporting guidelines, you will still need some source of information, you just won't be rewriting an article from elsewhere.--Ryan524 - (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what sources I could mention. I've been there for few hours, took the pictures, saw many tourists, who took images of sea lions too. Yesterday I watched news on TV about the dock. That's why I know that it was a new dock and sea lions started to came there in April of 2008 and that Harbor officials tried to get rid of them, but could not. That's about it. I really do not know what other collaboration I could provide, except being there myself. I just found this at the NET. I guess I'll add it as a source.--Mbz1 - (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could interview someone, like a harbor official or something, and post a transcript of the interview.--Ryan524 - (talk) 02:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I cannot. It is about two hours to drive one way from my home to Moss Landing. Maybe I'll try to call them tomorow, if I find a number and they would talk to me.May I please ask you why you believe the source I provided is not enough? Thank you.--Mbz1 - (talk) 03:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, so you have added a source. It's probably ample but its always good to have more than one source, to comapre and contrast and one source may mention some detail or explain it in a way you won't get in another souce, and by having a few sources it looks more credible than just a soucre, but a source is a start, and for an article where you can't find other sources, one should be sufficient.--Ryan524 - (talk) 03:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your time and for your help, Ryan524. So can we change the tag at the article to "ready" now?--Mbz1 - (talk) 03:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't the title a bit POV? --SVTCobra 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * May I please ask you what POV stands for and where exactly in the article you see it? Thank you.--Mbz1 - (talk) 14:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The title. Wikinews adheres to a neutral point-of-view, see WN:NPOV.--SVTCobra 14:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, SVTCobra. In the title I just wanted to be funny. May I please ask you to change the title as you believe would be better? Thank you for your time.--Mbz1 - (talk) 15:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Title and style
I also think the title for this article is a bit, well, odd. And also, language like this ''If you go, may I please suggest to take a closer look at these sea lions. You might be surprised to see much more rare and much more harder to find in the wild w:Sea Otter in the bunch of the noisy sea lions.'', is really not WN:NPOV, or appropriate. Cirt - (talk) 15:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment, Cirt.I added an image of sea otter because I saw many tourist looking only at sea lions, but never looked at sea otter, who was much closer to them than sea lions were. I told few of them about sea otter and they were interested to see him. I've learned English only few years ago. It would be great, if you could correct my wording and the title because I believe it is an interesting article with interesting images and it would be a pitty, if it does not get published. On the other hand I've been there, I took the pictures, I've done what I could to share them with WikiNews readers and it is probably as much as I could have done.Thank you.--Mbz1 - (talk) 16:01, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you everybody for the comments. I withdraw the article from consideration of being published, but I believe that both the title and the wording about sea otter have absolutely nothing to do with POV. If you see any POV, it comes not from me, but rather from sea lions and sea otteres. Please delete the article. Thanks.--Mbz1 - (talk) 20:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No takebacks, please. We just have limited human resources, so it takes a while for us to get around to articles, esp. those that are not urgent, such as this. I realize that the title is meant to be irreverent, but we need to appeal to a global audience and the title could be taken literally by some. --SVTCobra 00:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)