User talk:Bob35742

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood asks Arizona federal judge for injunctive relief
Hi. It'd be great if we could get this article into shape for publication, but it's not-ready in its current form. Please see my review comments and . --Pi zero (talk) 12:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. I'd also like to thank you for adding the Wikipedia links, pictures and making it more aesthetically pleasing. This is the first article I have worked on and I am not use to the wiki syntax. I hope my next article will have more of that done by myself. I believe I have fixed the problems that you found and have submitted it for re-review.Bob35742 (talk) 14:20, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, when I got to the deeper stage of review &mdash; the source-check &mdash; I hit another kind of problem. (This is not uncommon, for a first article:  our initial learning curve is steep; fortunately, it's steep but short, and once you get past it, which we do try to help with, things get a lot easier.)  Please see my review comments.  --Pi zero (talk) 16:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I changed some things around. I did not even look at the source this time to prevent any unintended copying. I left the layout the same because I think it follows the wiki layout. The one about giving the most important information the just important. I did not touch the stuff with the quotes because I do not see what you can change about those. Unless I am supposed to paraphrase. Thanks again. Bob35742 (talk) 18:05, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Direct quotes are another "obvious exception"; one doesn't quote the sources unless they become part of the story, like with the News of the World phone-hacking thing, but when one is, say, quoting something a politician said, those words aren't copyrighted by the news source from which we learned what the politician said. --Pi zero (talk) 18:22, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ohh. I see what you're asking about.  You're taking about indirect quotes.  If a source says
 * The governor said of the senator, "He couldn't count past ten without taking off his shoes and socks."
 * the words between quotation marks are a direct quote, and are the governor's words, not the news sources'; the words outside the double-quotes are the sources', though, and we'd need to choose those differently. However, if the source says
 * The governor cast aspersions on the senator's mathematical ability, suggesting he had to count on his fingers and toes.
 * then all those words belong to the source, and we'd have to put it in our own words. --Pi zero (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. I'm guessing the rewritten paragraph isn't going to be a problem (thanks!).  I've tried to be specific this time about which parts are the known copyvios.  Review comments.  --Pi zero (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have changed that around. You will have to tell me if the indirect quotes are different enough. It is hard to change something like that when I was not there to listen to them talk. Bob35742 (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Synthesis writing is an acquired skill. We've got a reporter around here who's amazingly good at it; reviewing his articles is a pleasure.  Information from a single source sentence ends up scattered to distant parts of the synthesis; and information in a single synthesis sentence is drawn from scattered places all over the sources.  Yet, it reads so smoothly you can scarcely imagine how it could be arranged differently; and in reviewing it, one can read the synthesis article once, then read the source paragraphs one at a time and see immediately where to cross out bits of the synthesis as now-verified.  I've been trying to figure out, ever since my first experience with such beautiful synthesis, how to share that experience with newcomers.  A tutorial or help page or something...  --Pi zero (talk) 23:04, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I've re-reviewed. Honestly, we've come a long way; and I hope you're learning a lot (an investment in the future).  Here are my current review comments and . —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pi zero (talk • contribs) 01:27, 28 March 2014


 * I would like to thank you for going through the article so many times. I fell that this has helped me immensely. I now fell that I have a reasonable idea of what Wikinews wants, what I can and can't do and how to go about doing it. I have addressed what you pointed out in the review report. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob35742 (talk • contribs) 03:00, 28 March 2014


 * Published. Congrats!    --Pi zero (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have learned a lot.Bob35742 (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Re: Study finds over 250,000 Americans die each year from low level lead exposure
Great job writing this in your own words and summarizing the findings.

Tips:


 * Wikinews articles need to be 2-3 days old at the time of publication.
 * The first paragraph needs to answer the key questions of who, what, where, when, how, and why.
 * At least two independent sources are required.

I know mainstream media often misses this (or does not say when an event occurred) and it is rather challenging to see what precisely is happening right now.

Please address this and re-submit (perhaps another story, unless a recent development has occurred or you have questions that could be presented for an interview with the corresponding author of the study (original reporting)).

--Gryllida (talk) 08:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the feedback Gryllida. I was wondering how exactly the age of an article is quantified. To use this study as an example, the original study was published on the 12th. However, publications such as Science Daily and others take several days to publish a report on it. So I was wondering if the clock starts to tick from the time that the study is published or if it is from the time that the mainstream media picks up on it.


 * Thanks for all of the information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bob35742 (talk • contribs) 09:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Bob35742. We measure from when an event publicly came to light &mdash; for example, sometimes a death isn't made public immediately so that family or friends can be privately informed first, and then we may end up reporting on the death as much as a week or more after the actual event (making a point to mention in our lede when the death was publicly announced and why the delay).  And yes, this can make scientific papers difficult to report on using synthesis, because we don't even know it's happened until it's mentioned in things like , which on occasion has been known to be as much as a month after the public appearance in a peer-reviewed journal.  Experienced Wikinewsies have sometimes solved this difficulty by directly contacting one (or even more than one) of the researchers for an interview, and producing an original reporting (OR) article for Wikinews; beware, though, that's an advanced technique, and you really need to gain experience (and reputation) here at Wikinews by writing synthesis before attempting OR.  Gryllida is someone who's had some success with that sort of OR in the past.  --Pi zero (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Re: President Trump is Being Investigated for Potential Tax Fraud by New York State
Hi again Bob35742,

--Gryllida chat / how do YOU get started? 02:49, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources are less than 2-3 days old. Well done!
 * The headline needs to be in active voice. I would suggest 'US: New York state opens an investigation of President Donald Trump for potential tax fraud'
 * Please check precisely what happened. The investigation was started a while ago (not this week); now somebody published a report. Who published it and where? This may need to be the focus of the headline. I think I got it now, it was actually started just now in response to the article published by New York Times. Please forget this and look at other suggestions. --Gryllida chat / how do YOU get started? 02:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please check inverted pyramid layout and arrange the text in at least three paragraphs as required.
 * At least two independent sources are provided. Well done!
 * To make it clear: you are encouraged to read the above, and the talk page of the article, and correct these issues as soon as possible. With such a follow-up, the chances of publication increase dramatically. Please do this as soon as you can at your convenience. I really hope that the time allows... (I have a deadline this week, so not currently available for in-depth editing or review.)
 * Here are the Acagastya's review comments. --Gryllida chat / how do YOU get started? 05:15, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Wikinews Shorts: October 4, 2018
Hi again Bob35742,

Shorts is a rarely used format. I was confused at first!

--Gryllida chat / how do YOU get started? 05:10, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Like in the last one, the develop status tag needs to be included at the top. This is usually automatic. I have added the status tag myself now. (Could you please tell me what link did you follow which resulted in this status template being missing? This may help someone to fix it.)
 * I think the paragraph is a bit too long. It may perhaps be split in two or three (potentially enough for a separate article). The standard is 2-3 sentences per paragraph, and one idea per paragraph, as far as I remember.
 * 'humanitarian aid' is introduced but is not explained in the subsequent sentence. I understand that the context usually goes to the end of a story; however, the first paragraph which answers the What, who, where, why, when, and how needs to be self-sufficient.
 * To me it is not clear why Iran lodged their submission to the ICJ. While a short submission doesn't need to be long, it needs to answer the 5Ws and an H -- including the 'why' -- I think? Perhaps this can be added?
 * Whenever you are ready, please submit the shorts for review. (This needs to be done as early as possible, but only after you consider the text ready for a peer review and publication.)

Let's simplify this,
Rather than writing a larger piece, instead, please consider just writing a headline here about something current -- what happened today -- and clicking Go:

(Then click 'Save changes' on the next page)

Someone will try to finish the story for you and leave you feedback.

Not all stories will be finished, but it is important that you learn to identify what's current. Then we can together move to the next step.

--Gryllidamsg/chat 22:13, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: Wikinews Shorts: October 4, 2018
Hi Bob35742,

The story was removed as abandoned. A few thoughts:


 * Great - this was new (a day ago) at the time of your writing. :-)
 * It is needed additional improvements before publication, which have not been made in time.
 * Improvements suggested by me are in one of the sections on this page above.
 * Here is a copy of the improvements suggested by Pi zero:
 * "This one item looks like it wants to be a standalone article, rather than one of the elements of a collection of shorts. The amount of text is enough to make a minimal standalone article; but it would need to be divided into three paragraphs (at least; probably not more in this case), with suitable distribution of information between paragraphs (cf. WN:lede, WN:inverted pyramid).
 * There are some lengthy passages here, easily found, verbatim from the BBC source: "the 1955 ... US" (that one's actually not as bad as the others, since the larger part of it is a title); "unfounded because ... nuclear accord"; and "announced ... Treaty of Amity"."
 * Occasionally with any submissions, short or long, not only a reviewer provides feedback, but a volunteer also edits them to publish. This has not happened in this case. But do not let this worry you -- the feedback received may help you with writing of your next story better. This is important and this has occurred. (I try harder to finish things, but not each one of them is completed fully, and I most kindly ask you to not be frustrated by this.)
 * I believe it is better to submit the story using the standard process at WN:WRITE and avoid the shorts process because it is too short to be published and it is harder to review when there is more than one short on one page. There was a recent discussion at the water cooler about this. If you do not mind me asking, how did you find the button or link to create a new shorts page? I would like to make sure that any such buttons are discussed at the water cooler as well and if the consensus is to remove them, then they need to be removed.
 * Maybe you wanted to write something short. Shorter submissions may still be made at 'request an article' process. The likelihood of publication depends a lot on the quality of such a short submission: a couple sources and one paragraph answering the WN:5W is still small, but constitutes about 80% (maybe? this is a wild guess) of the effort towards writing a full article.

Please keep up the great work. :)

--Gryllida (chat) 23:42, 11 October 2018 (UTC)