User talk:Fmrauch

Welcome
Tempodivalse talk 16:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

India: Independent hearing on nuclear power starts on Wednesday
Hi. I'm looking at India: Independent hearing on nuclear power starts on Wednesday and finished reviewing it. I have left comments. If you could review those comments, reflect on them and change the text to address these points, that would be great. :) The article really lacks clarity about why this topic matters, who is running it and what the important facts are.  For me, the last paragraph should probably be found combined in the first paragraph to better highlight why this topic matters.  The international aspects should also be explained.  International how?  Indian speakers at an Indian conference does not appear to make it an international conference.  (And there is no indication Greenpeace part is actually involved as parties outside India.) --LauraHale (talk) 11:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I assessed the article not-ready, review comments here.  Keep in mind, the first article at Wikinews is generally the hardest, because one is learning basics of Wikinews writing.  --Pi zero (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not be discouraged :)
Please do not become discouraged. Writing Wikinews is a process. Once you get the first two or three articles published, it becomes much easier as you can anticipate what reviewers will look for. It is getting that first one over the line that is difficult. I lost my first article because of timeliness issues and, while I thought I had followed the style guidelines, I had not fully grasped them. Even regular contributors sometimes run into problems. I believe both myself and Bddpaux have run afoul of "not news" in the past few months. (Mine was an interview with a Wikipedian and Bddpaux's was an issue of some one retiring.) Please do stick with it, because getting news out is very important. :) You're getting much closer now and having a few editors writing publishable articles about India would be great. :) --LauraHale (talk) 03:08, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

India article.........
Does the hearing start today, or did it start on Sunday....somehow, that bit got deleted?? --Bddpaux (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * TODAY ! --Fmrauch (talk) 08:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Please think before editing
The template W is meant to go to local categories. Where else would you find other news articles on ? --Brian McNeil / talk 11:49, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Where did you get 55,000
Where did you get the number 55,000 from in this article??? -- Cirt (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Mass protest grows against Kudankulam nuclear power plant in India

"From one police station alone, charges have been brought against more than 55,000 people including 8,000 for sedition and ‘war against the state’." see http://www.dianuke.org/support-for-koodankulam-from-london-statement-by-cnd-south-asia-solidarity-group --Fmrauch (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you involved in DiaNuke? --Brian McNeil / talk 17:00, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No - I am only reporting ! --Fmrauch (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just a clarification from my perspective. When checking the sources before proposing to remove the sentence (if we waited before acting, the article would have been frozen by the archive policy with the sentence in it, and we'd have been facing a likely correction), I noted the sentence quoted above.  That sentence does not support the sentence in the Wikinews article; it does not indicate 55,000 people protesting at once, let alone the number of such "growing" to that size.  --Pi zero (talk)

Qatar announces to produce solar cells next year
Thanks for starting the story. It was not ready; someone edited it and re-submitted it. I added several minor lede style questions on its talk page; as you're familiar with the sources already, addressing them may be trivial and can help toward the success of the next review. Thanks again. --Gryllida 12:53, 4 December 2012 (UTC) - It's done. --Fmrauch (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. I left some notes in reply to your remark on the talk page.  The third one is kind of key:  I suspected, and still suspect, that the article wasn't fresh even at the time it was last submitted for review, because the attempt to freshen it involved adding a newer source, but it didn't appear to use any newly-revealed information from that source.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2012 (UTC)