User talk:JessicalynnoraUOW

-- 01:31, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Templates vs links
Hi JessicalynnoraUOW, welcome to Wikinews. I've read a few of your drafts and found you haven't quite mastered the wiki syntax and are mistaking templates for links.

This is how you include a template: there are templates for a lot of things on Wikinews. The national templates (like 'Japan', 'United Kingdom', 'Germany' etc.) provide a handy sidebar showing other stories related to that country. There are topic templates too like 'Crime and law'. To see how these templates look, take a look at Rebekah Brooks resigns from News International - this story has a 'United Kingdom' template on the side.

Now, in text, you can use two different types of links:

or

The former links to the Wikinews page on Tony Blair while the latter links to the Wikipedia page on Tony Blair. If a page exists on Wikinews, it's best to link straight to Wikinews, but if not, link to Wikipedia.

Hope that helps. —Tom Morris (talk) 10:27, 13 August 2011 (UTC) Thanks! It does help. Wikinews is a little confusing at first! :)


 * Just a note.
 * Actually,  can be used always, for simplicity: the w template first looks for a Wikinews page, and links to that if there is one, and only if there isn't a Wikinews page, then links to Wikipedia instead.  --Pi zero (talk) 11:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

ok, is my Japan utilises renewable energy article templated correctly?


 * There were a couple of problems with the sources. I noted them on the article talk page.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, i believe i have fixed the source issues up now. Is it ready for publishing?


 * I ran into difficulties when starting to move into the rigorous source-check phase of review. Hopefully you can clear up the problems and resubmit; I pulled it off the review queue in the meantime.


 * Things got a bit tangled when I submitted my review, something to do with the article renamings presumably; I think I've got it straightened out now. --Pi zero (talk) 14:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok, i think the reason why those articles don't completely cover my facts int he article is because i relied heavily on the WSJ article for information but didn't realise wikinews doesn't allow that as a source. So is it possible to clarify my facts using the WSJ or will i need to re-write the whole article?


 * I left another note on the article talk, to try to clarify things. --Pi zero (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

availability for review
Unfortunately, I've gotten busy within the past few hours, so I'm not quite sure whether I can review your article at this time. Furthermore, other reviewers seem to be unavailable or unwilling to review, so I strongly suggest that you and your classmates send messages to as many reviewers as possible and hope they respond. The situation is admittedly getting bad — having 20 articles in the reviewing queue is straining our resources, and we simply cannot guarantee timely review of all 20 articles.

A community discussion is taking place on Water_cooler/policy regarding ways we could reform the current review system. Perhaps it would be helpful for you and your classmates to contribute even one comment to the discussion? It also might help to get a few experienced students from your class to become reviewers themselves — they can apply here. I've noticed that people who are already involved in the community tend to get their articles reviewed more quickly. Ragettho (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)


 * A few thoughts.
 * Brianmc hoped there'd be a reviewer or two out of last semester, but tbh that seems more likely this semester than last. I suspect it has to do in part with last semester's students knowing less about what to expect here, and in part with final-year students being understandably preoccupied with graduating and getting on with their lives.
 * Note there are lots of opportunities for conflict of interest in UoW students' involvement here. Any UoW-student reviewer would presumably refrain from publishing articles by UoW students.  The water cooler discussion is fraught with hazard for UoW students, since the functioning of the project is directly tied to the reason the UoW students are here at all.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 15:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)