User talk:LHC Tommy

Welcome
Tempodivalse [talk]  22:49, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

citation
Hi.Welcome to wikinews, and thank you for adding to Large Hadron Collider restarted. Just as a note, we use a slightly different citation method than wikipedia. You only have to add the source template to the bottom of the article. You do not have to do the  part. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask. Bawolff ☺☻ 04:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

“Massive Prize” awarded to Physicists in Washington D.C.
Hello LHC Tommy. Just to let you know, articles on Wikinews can only be published after a review by another, uninvolved editor. I'm afraid there's a bit of a backlog at the moment, but I'm sure it will get done soon as soon as possible. the wub "?!"  13:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Will wait LHC Tommy (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How long until this is reviewed? LHC Tommy (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, I had to give this a failing review. The listed sources are not enough to verify the article. The writing and style are fine. --SVTCobra 01:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Added multiple sources to verify event LHC Tommy (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See link for full event (http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=BDA16F52CA3C9B1D) LHC Tommy (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Staleness
The article cannot be published in its current form because it fails to satisfy one of the most primordial requirements for publication, namely freshness. If it isn't fresh, it isn't news. Although Rayboy8 and I are both editors, qualified to do peer reviews, failing an article for lack of freshness isn't handled through the Easy Peer Review gadget, which puts a peer reviewed template on the article's talk page; instead, one manually puts a stale tag on the article itself. The difference probably comes down to the fact that staleness is a failing from which most articles cannot recover.

For freshness, details have to have come to light within the past couple of days or so (and the event itself has to have been within a week).

The award event itself is falling out of the one-week horizon, and presumably all details about it came to light outside the 2–3 day horizon. There is one loophole that is sometimes mentioned in staleness situations. If some further news regarding the matter were to arise, then an article about that, written well within its freshness horizon, might incorporate the material of the current article.

From time to time, an article does go stale and get deleted despite having no other shortcomings than staleness. It's a singularly unrewarding experience all around. (My own early experience with this can't really be compared with yours, because I'd only contributed an hour or two of copyediting to the article involved, which isn't nearly as bad as having been the primary author.) --Pi zero (talk) 01:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tried to get this article up and reviewed quickly after the event. I feel it is "stale" becuase the review process and specific feedback took so long.  This has been a very dissappointing experience and I guess gaining new authors is not a priority.  Everything on this site as of now can be seen on CNN.com so I clearly don't get this wikinews.  My apologies.  I will most likely not be back. LHC Tommy (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * We'd be sorry to lose you. We want new authors.  Specifically, speaking for myself, I think we could use more coverage in the hard sciences.  And more broadly, shortage of personnel is the biggest single reason why articles sometimes aren't reviewed as promptly as they ought to be &mdash; I agree with your assessment of this case: staleness was ultimately due to a sluggish review process.


 * Wikinews has Wikimedia ideals much like those of Wikipedia. It seeks to make the world a better place by providing a neutral source of information driven by the citizenry of the Internet &mdash; in the news realm, which is about taking snapshots of events as they happen and preserving those snapshots, whereas Wikipedia uses this same strategy in the encyclopedic realm, for gradual assembly of information about past events.  The more comprehensive the information, the more good it will do in the world &mdash; and again, for that Wikinews needs more authors.


 * More specifically, Wikinews aspires to bring the Wikimedian ideal of Neutral Point of View to news coverage, providing uncensored news without bias either in choice of stories or in the way those stories are covered (something that cannot be expected from commercial news organizations, let alone goverment-run outlets like Voice of America).


 * I hope you choose to contribute here again &mdash; and if you do, consider dropping me a line on my talk page; among reviewers here, I may be relatively unintimidated by reviewing physics articles (although real-world events can interfere; for example, it likely wouldn't have worked this past week because the flu had pretty much flattened me). --Pi zero (talk) 05:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobel for Higgs boson
Are all the listed sources needed for this? You're putting what seems like a lot of work onto reviewers. If any of the sources are not used in the article, or substantially duplicated by others, it would improve the chances of the article being reviewed were they trimmed back. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk &bull; main talk 23:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was going to look over it, but the sight of that many sources just turned me off... I don't have an hour to read through all of them and watch all the videos. Can you try to trim the ones that aren't needed or don't provide information not already stated in another source? Usually, articles have 2, 3, or 4 sources.  — fetch · comms  21:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)
 * You also cannot publish it yourself.  — fetch · comms  02:02, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, making mods to sources. Thank you.LHC Tommy (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Style points addressed. Hoping someone can review an dpublishLHC Tommy (talk) 23:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Can someone review and publish this? Every time I soubmit a good article it nver gets reviewed - it waits and waits.  Then someone says it is stale.  There are no major dates to make this stale.  It is also only not published becasue it is not being reviewed.  It failed becuase it was "Higgs boson" vs. "Higgs Boson".  C'mon.