User talk:LaurenRobinson96

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 00:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

UoW?
Are you a UoW student? I ask because if so, we should put a UoW student template on your user page. --Pi zero (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I am. What will that do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LaurenRobinson96 (talk • contribs) 03:18, 13 May 2016‎


 * It helps us keep track of things; puts a message on your user page, and puts your user page in a category. I've added it; you can see it there now.  --Pi zero (talk) 03:32, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that. I appreciate it. I'm still learning the ropes of Wikinews and I appreciate your help.

China bans erotic banana eating
Hi. It looks like you did a fairly credible job of addressing review concerns from my last review. Unfortunately (I feel a bit sheepish admitting), now that the lede does address the question "when", it finally registered on me that the article has passed its freshness date; in fact (I'm kicking myself), it already had done so when I wrote the last review. I'm hopeful you've gotten useful experience with Wikinews writing from it, and can carry that forward to another article, but it looks as if this one probably has no future. Review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I definitely did work had to correct my mistakes and it is disappointing that a piece I worked significantly hard on has to be thrown to the wolves. I will have a think about how I can salvage my work.

India set to install panic buttons on buses to combat sexual assault
Hi. This had some difficulties; see my review comments. --Pi zero (talk) 13:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Had another look and fixed what you pointed out. Added some more sources. thanks


 * Hi again. I encountered some problems on review; I guess I wasn't clear enough on the principles underlying multiple-sourcing, and also there was a similarity-to-source issue.  See my review comments; also of interest, as always, the  (I deliberately split up edits during review in hopes of clarifying the purpose of each edit).  --Pi zero (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. I have reworded the majority of my article. I can assure you I did not intentionally plagiarise anybody's work. I am much more ethical than that, and appreciate other journalists work enough to take credit for it. It was an honest mistake. I have fixed a few sentences and added to the article to incorporate some more statistics from the source I added. Please let me know if you encounter any more problems.


 * I really do believe the similarities were unintentional; I see the difficulty as entirely one of getting across clearly what is needed (which turns out to be remarkably difficult). --Pi zero (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It is a pretty simple story too. There's only so many ways to construct a sentence of 'bus' and 'button'. I feel it's an important one but, which is what I was trying to communicate.


 * Yes, there's a limit to how many ways one can rearrange a given sentence, and one of the difficulties is that when I as a reviewer try to fix such a problem, I'm severely limited in what I'm allowed, so that reshuffling a given sentence is the most I can do (and even that I mustn't do too much of). Which also means that my "fixes" set a bad example.  A writer has much more flexibility, because they can choose the organization of the content all the way up to article structure.  In the best synthesis writing I've seen, a given sentence is likely to contain information from multiple sources, or from distant parts of a given source, while information from any given source sentence may end up distributed widely across the synthesis article &mdash; and yet, the synthesis reads completely naturally and at the same time is really easy to verify.  Reviewing that sort of synthesis was a revelation for me, so much so that I've be trying ever since to figure out a way to share that revelatory view with newcomers to Wikinews.  --Pi zero (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes. being new to wiki news, there is a lot to learn, and it is different to my normal form of writing. Thanks for you patience and feedback.


 * Published. Contrats!  See my review comments, and . Btw, prospects for the Everest article don't look so rosy atm.  It already worried me that you were working on two articles at once, which is risky for someone still learning the basics of Wikinews writing.  The lede there is problematic, and now it looks as if there may have been some significant new developments and someone else has submitted an article about them (which I have not yet had a chance to look at).  --Pi zero (talk) 20:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Four deaths in Four days raises concern for Mount Everest
Although I haven't yet formally reviewed this article yet (there's a glut of articles on the review queue), I did leave a note on the article's collaboration page (a.k.a. talk page), yonder. --Pi zero (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)