Talk:US: Navy, UK navy respond to merchant vessel distress call in Strait of Hormuz

Needs a name-change
I jumped the gun on requesting a review. I just noticed the title needs changed to state "Strait of Hormuz." I missed the "of."

I won't change it right now, in case the reviewer prefers a better title, which is common for my articles (I know I'm not great at choosing a title).

Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 16:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4731160 [Passed]

 * @SVTCobra: I thought of that too, but the US Navy's press release, not the described confrontation itself, that's the focal event. So like Russia: Kremlin drone attack was Ukrainian assassination attempt on Putin the colon stands in for a present-tense word and the previous event is described in the past tense. Heavy Water (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I haven't read the sources, but if so, it sound like it should be more like "US Navy says it and UK navy responded to merchant vessel distress call in Strait of Hormuz" to maintain active voice... in other words, more like the AP. And if the focal event is the report, when did the naval incident occur? And the final paragraph says "Sunday's follows" ... what does that mean? Are there missing words? Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:38, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @SVTCobra: It it were passive voice it would be something like "US Navy, UK navy responded to merchant vessel distress call in Strait of Hormuz, says US Navy." The incident also occurred on Sunday. We should probably say that in the lead instead/as well, and I'll add it in, but it's said in the final paragraph as you noted: "Sunday's follows other incidents at sea involving Iran since the US' 2018 unilateral exit from the Iran nuclear deal." That's what "Sunday's" is. Heavy Water (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't it be "Sunday's incident follows others at sea ... " if that's the case? SVTCobra 03:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I guess that sounds better, yeah. Heavy Water (talk) 04:57, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * As for the passive/active voice in title, I think it would have to be in quotes to use past tense. Cheers, SVTCobra 07:19, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I do detest the title now became almost same as USN press release. SVTCobra 09:12, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Press Release
@SVTCobra, how did you determine the Navy.mil article was a press release? I originally had it listed as a press release (with a typo in the template name, doh!), but ultimately didn't because it's in the "news stories" category and not included in the "press releases" category on Navy.mil.

I don't fully understand how they determine when to use a news story versus when to use a press release. Defense.gov has the same thing; a news category and a releases category. Maybe they use press releases in an attempt to get broader coverage on a particular event? Or are they all classified as press releases by Wikinews because of the source?

Thanks in advance...

Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:26, 8 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Army.mil has a newsroom and a press office as distinctly defined entities. But articles listed at the landing page for newsroom are categorized 'release' and articles listed at the landing page for press office are categorized news. I thought it would be the other way around. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:35, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I realize that they keep separate entries for "press briefings", "statements", "press releases" and "news stories". I hesitate to call propaganda, but it is released without any known editorial oversight except governmental oversight. It was published by the "Press Office" and stated as being "From U.S. Naval Forces Central Command Public Affairs". I really don't see how any these should not be under the Wikinews umbrella of "press release". And it's not just for governments either. If a company had a similar division of "news" and "press releases", I don't see why Wikinews should not call it all press releases. The sole exception, in my view, are personal statements by individuals (be they on Twitter, Facebook or elsewhere). Nevertheless, I would see more merit in calling those press releases than presuming that this is just another source. Maybe I am thinking about inherent bias and trying avoid passing it on to the reader. But I do not regret putting this in source-pr. I am open for debate. Cheers, SVTCobra 23:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That helps. As does the wikipedia policy page on independent sources (which aligns with what you are saying; take press releases with a grain of salt). Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)