User talk:Uow-mg012

-- Wikinews Welcome (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

UOW?
Are you a University of Wollongong student? If so, please put a UoW student template on your user page, like this:

--Pi zero (talk) 03:47, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Your article
I renamed your article to Boston bombing suspect charged. Articles use the sentence case style of capitalization for headlines according to the Wikinews style guide. Thanks for your contribution! — Mike moral  ♪♫  20:14, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. I've been reviewing your article.  It looks as if you had a lot of trouble with formatting, and didn't submit it for review.  Another user submitted it for review a few hours ago.


 * I cleaned up most of the formatting problems; I know formatting like that can be really hard to figure out without an example of how it's done, so I'm hoping by cleaning it up on this article I've given you a helpful example. By all means, if you have more questions, ask.


 * Unfortunately, the elapsed time while it wasn't asking for review has taken it all the way to stale. :-S


 * My review comments are here. --Pi zero (talk) 22:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleveland article
Excellent effort!! Please read my comments and re-submit accordingly. --Bddpaux (talk) 16:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your article has been deleted as abandoned, but I have moved it to your userspace so you can keep it for future reference. The page name is User:Uow-mg012/Man charged with Cleveland, Ohio kidnapping. — Mike moral  ♪♫  08:10, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Wikilinking
When making wikilinks on Wikinews, take note that we use the w template. You use it like this: If Wikinews has a category or portal with that name, then it will link internally to Wikinews, otherwise, it links to Wikipedia. I changed all the links on your article. Thanks for your latest article. — Mike moral  ♪♫  05:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

White House releases Benghazi emails
Hi. I carried a review partway through, hit a distance-from-source problem, and requested the reporter go through and eliminate such. See review comments, and . --Pi zero (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Another review. I've written another set of review comments; and there were also additional .


 * Effective synthesis can be a tricky thing; some people take to it naturally, others not so much. We've had some serious discussions here, over time, about how best to explain how it's done; it's possible that additional software tools we've hoping to get on-line in the future will help us.  The most impressive experience I've had on this front was actually the first time I reviewed a synthesis article by Blood Red Sandman (a skilled Wikinewsie who hasn't been around lately); the article organization didn't remotely resemble any of the sources, each sentence contained material from scattered parts of one or more sources, and if any given source passage was used, its content appeared scattered across the Wikinews article.  I've been trying ever since to figure out how to share with newcomers the aha! experience of tracing the way the sources mapped onto that synthesis article.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)