Talk:Wildfire affects Lolol, Chile area; yellow alert lifted

Short?
Isn't this a little short? -- Nascar 1996  (talk • contribs) 23:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe, but there is no more information, and it meets the three-paragraphs minimum required for an article. --Diego Grez return fire 23:38, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I guess. However, I'm not going to review this article, since I'm not sure. -- Nascar 1996  (talk • contribs) 23:41, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * WN:SG recommends between 30 and 80 words per paragraph. Para 1 has 20; para 2 has 39; para 3 has 24. It's too short for me as well.  Bencherlite (talk) 23:49, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is a little short. I'd be more comfortable with a few more sentences. Tempodivalse [talk]  23:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

"Lolol is a town located in the O'Higgins Region of Chile [you've already told us this in the opening sentence], it has about 3,000 inhabitants [ok], and some of its urban centre is considered a "Typical Zone" by the National Monuments Council [whatever that means - and the relevance of that in any case is...?]" Bencherlite (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe to give a bit of context of what is Lolol and not to confuse it with certain internet meme? --Diego Grez return fire 00:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, you've lost me. In any case, this story is quite clearly about a place, not an internet meme. Incidentally, the WP article about Lolol says it had about 6,200 inhabitants as of 2002 - where's your 3,000 figure from, out of interest? Bencherlite (talk) 00:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suppose the urban centre has 3,000 inhabitants, IIRC. Well, I'll fix that in a second. I'm not going to create false stories if there is no more information on the wildfire, sorry. Diego Grez return fire 00:24, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No one is asking you to "create false stories", Diego, are they? Not everything that happens can be written up as a full news story, which is why we have Category:Wikinews Shorts. Bencherlite (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not a Wikinews short. The article meets its basic requirements and the sources are reasonable, if short.  No need to harass Diego unless you have some specific, policy-based concerns.  --Ashershow1talk 00:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I was one of three people who thought that the article as it originally stood was too short. He's added two further sentences, and I questioned the need for, and accuracy of, some of the information he aded to get the article to a more acceptable length. That is in no sense harassment.  Diego ran a strawman argument about "false stories" which I challenged.  That's not harassment either. In the meantime, I note that two other editors have raised concerns about the article's content, which perhaps suggests that publication was premature. Bencherlite (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps harassment was the wrong word. I am, however, concerned that a legitimately-sized article is being subject to undue scrutiny concerning it's size.  If you the think the minimum article size should be larger, take it up with the policy-makers. --Ashershow1talk 00:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Non-apology accepted. It's legitimately sized now.  It wasn't at the outset, with two of the three paragraphs below the minimum word length of WN:SG. That's why three people were uncomfortable with the length, and as such the scrutiny that the article received was entirely legitimate. Bencherlite (talk) 00:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

OR
The final "paragraph" consists of purely generally known information here in Chile. It is obviously available on Wikipedia, you can check it there, if you want too. Diego Grez return fire 00:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification problem
What is a "Typical Zone"? This phrase is not explained anywhere in the article. Tempodivalse [talk]  00:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What is a "red alert"? That seems like the most newsworthy aspect of this, and it's not described at all. What's it mean, what's it involve? C628 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2011 (UTC)