Wikinews:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions/JJLiu112

❌. Unfortunately the candidate has not edited in ten days and there have been no further comments from others in those ten days except my change to neutral. The proposed co-review has not taken place because of IRL work. The support from two others is good but it has to be outweighed by the lack of availability of the candidate for the last ten days. Whenever you apply for something like this, you should be available to answer questions. Please do submit a fresh candidacy on your return to editing and when you are unlikely to be busy in the real world. [24Cr][talk] 02:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

It is no secret Wikinews, at present, is inundated with a significant, persistent and, as demonstrated, irresolvable backlog only so to the voracity of contributors and relative absence of reviewers, an acceptable, even expected disparity in any on-line site, but terrible to one as dependent on timely publication and feedback as Wikinews is. I cannot emphasise any more how undesirable this present condition is. It has a real, demoralising effect on writers and reporters, who must contend themselves with week-late "sorry, this is stale" notes, and can add unneeded burden on reviewers. Neither side is at blame, but the web site suffers. I hope this is not "news" to anybody.

There is no real alternative. Pressing reviewers simply to "do more" is ridiculous, and I shudder to think of a volunteer-driven effort turning away willing contributors. I therefore nominate myself to this post as an frequently-active, presently-disgruntled accredited reporter who has written over 30 articles, and several OR, who has frequently worked on articles by sheer volition and participated in pertinent discussion, who has given real feedback. I am aware of concerns I may be "caustic", to use such a word. For those past examples I can only apologise, and acknowledge the situations in which such arguments arose. I can provide only my sincere apology such conversations happened at all, and assurance they will not again.

I truly believe in Wikinews, and equally so that we can get over the present situation, a tragedy with no aggressors, which has made it so difficult to stay involved. And I believe that this is how. --JJLiu112 (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments

 * , thank you for putting your name forward for reviewer. Could you try to answer the following questions, please?
 * What style of inline references are acceptable for a Wikinews article?
 * Inline references are not accepted as on Wikipedia articles or academic articles ([1] etc); for example, one could not cite an article in the sentence where information was pulled from it. Instead, contributors should link all sources used in the source template, and provide appropriate attribution: "According to the BBC, data indicates...", with the article linked in sources (of course, with all fields filled properly).  If OR, there could be html code that aids in the review process.  This view is supported in For Wikipedians and Style Guide.  Should a contributor have difficulty, I would guide them through this process. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an article for review, written in German with excellent German sources? How would you review it and why?
 * This is not a theoretical situation for me, as I have dealt with this before. Though I cannot recall either the page or user's name (and regardless, the first was deleted months ago after being failed for review), I proactively encouraged a user writing a seemingly-legitimate, non-spam article in Russian on the article and user talk to submit it to the Russian Wikinews.  I have no issue doing the same again, with German instead. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A new user writes an article about the and tags it for review. How would you review it and why?
 * I would first regard the precise nature of the article, as there have been past instances where users attempted to submit news articles with focal points well over a year ago. Should this be a legitimate subsequent development or relevant OR piece, I would review it as usual.  New or established user alike, I will undergo the same rigorous process of review, and that means checking sources, verifying information, basic copyediting and providing final judgement and feedback, if necessary.  There will also be more reason to check for copyright violations, poor grasp of the English language etc, of course, but the basic process is the same. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * An article you are reviewing uses a quotation of three sentences spoken by a famous politician, but the sentences don’t appear in the sources in the WN article. You know of a different source that quotes those exact three sentences. How would you add this as a source?
 * I would discuss this with the contributor. Should this prove impossible, or they prove unreachable, and the quote is central, I would fail the review and leave a quick summary of why.  As explained to me before, no reviewer can add sources manually without explicit permission by the contributor.  Should the quote's inclusion prove minor to publication (generally the case if no relevant source includes it), I would remove the quote and approve it (assuming all other criteria are met, of course), then leave a message on the article talk page, encouraging a sighted edit from the original contributor, or someone else. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You’ve reviewed an article about a crucial part of the and published it just the day after the election. A week later someone points out an error in the article. What do you do about it?
 * It depends on the exact condition. If the contributor misspelled Scott Morrison as "Scot Morison", then it can be rectified swiftly and without dispute.  If the contributor claimed he ran for the Bharatiya Janata Party in the 2015 Hungarian elections, then a correction must be issued posthaste with the template correction, a process I am familiar with after dealing with it myself on North Korea withdraws from Tokyo Olympics, citing COVID-19 concerns (self-proposed) & Serbian Orthodox Church elects new Patriarch Porfirije ("someone else pointed out").  If archived (as is convention for articles after seven days, "it should no longer be edited on elements of content, sources, or other substance".  --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * There is an article to be reviewed. It is about alleged Chinese hacking (apparently ordered by Xi Jinping himself) of US President Biden's phone. It is very well written with a dozen paragraphs, in the correct style, with no copyright problems and is very newsworthy, citing articles from the Washington Post, the New York Times, CNN, Fox News and NBC, as well as quoting senior US intelligence officials, the White House, and the Speaker of the House. What reviewing issues might you raise about this article that could be pertinent to WN policies?
 * First, I must check this is in date (though a damned shame if not), in which case all further steps are pointless. Next, both Watpo and the NYT are paywalled sources, which disallows their use.  I would speak to the contributor on verifiability.  Otherwise, there is the matter of due weight concerns.  Wikinews articles are not editorials/advertisements, and both NPOV and the Neutrality essay must be regarded at all times, in case of speculation, misrepresentation or phrase bias, which could plague even the most "well written" articles, style aside.  If it is clear the article is pushing one particular view, or at the least grossly misrepresenting or inflating it, this is cause for rejection. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You have reviewed a new article and found it did not meet WN standards. The user who wrote it leaves an angry message on your talk page alleging a poor review on your part. How would you respond to them, particularly with reference to the five components of a review?
 * Follow Dispute resolution and, somehow, keep a level head. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Of the articles you have written or contributed to, which one might you select as an example of your best work on WN? Which one might you select as the worst example of your work on WN?
 * A personal favourite is 'Each makes the other more difficult to recover from': University of Sussex professor L. Alan Winters speaks to Wikinews on trade, COVID-19, Brexit, and Serbian Orthodox Church elects new Patriarch Porfirije, my personal bane. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * You don’t have to answer any of them but it might help my mindset. [24Cr][talk] 03:55, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Very good and clear answers to my questions. One of the most important components of the review process is the interaction between reviewer and contributor, especially when improvements are needed in the article. You’ve shown that you understand this with comments and suggestions in draft articles as well as the detailed answers to questions here. I look forward to finding out how the co-review goes - in fact this sounds like an excellent way to examine reviewing ability of candidates. [24Cr][talk] 13:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Frankly speaking, I would like to see anyone willing to be a reviewer first attempt reviewing other's articles and to help newbies -- even going as far as showing every single thing how it is done before making the move. •–• 04:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have "attempted", Agastya, with respect to basic copyediting and the providing of feedback (let alone blanking of spam, proposed deletions and copyvio). One need only go through my contributions to find examples.  While it is true I have not sat down and reviewed an entire article for no actualised benefit, instead using eventual feedback on my and others' articles as guidelines, I have definitely endeavoured in both areas mentioned. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I remember at times your assessment was rather too quick to for marking things stale -- so I will prefer to see better sense of judgement in the days to come. And I do appreciate the help you do.  I feel you can do it better.  Try comparing the changes between your final revision to the one which is published, and how things can be improved -- I feel just a little bit more of finesse is further required.  But yes, "reviewing", or at least co-reviewing with a reviewer, perhaps on IRC, while you think out loud how things are done -- that will be a good starting point.  If you are free later today, we can review that Phillipines article.  Let me know if that works for you. •–•  06:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not got much to say here except that I agree with most of your concerns here. It is terribly damaging to such a small project that so many articles are being rejected because we don't have the personnel to review them, and it drives away newcomers who could potentially be of great value to the project to just see "sorry, this is stale". I don't have any questions for you, but I think you could make a very good reviewer, and I'm interested in seeing your responses to these questions. :) --LivelyRatification (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, friend! --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Even though I've been only part of the project since March and contributed here and there, I think that it is justified for you to request reviewer status. Wikinews is in bad shape and active reviewers don't match the inflow of articles. From the point of view of someone who had two articles rejected because they had become stale in the queue, I think that a user like you could fit the role of reviewer. Even though you may not be perfect, Wikinews is based on the collaboration of multiple imperfect volunteer users, and not on a single perfect user. Henrymyman (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to interject, "From the point of view of someone who had two articles rejected because they had become stale in the queue, I think that a user like you could fit the role of reviewer" is just a really bad reason. •–• 14:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * From the point of view of someone who had over five articles rejected because they had become stale in the queue, I think it was merely a passing remark and relation to the post, not express acknowledgement of all my qualifications: "a user like you", for example. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:20, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Votes

 * per my comment above. [24Cr][talk] 13:14, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Moving to pending the outcome of a joint review by the candidate and an experienced reviewer, which seems to be not happening at the moment. Additionally the candidate has not edited in a week, so awaiting a return to activity. [24Cr][talk] 15:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)


 * - based off the nominee's track record and their response to these questions, I think they'd make a good reviewer. --LivelyRatification (talk) 22:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Not much to say other than to wish you good luck. Henrymyman (talk) 14:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)