Wikinews talk:Review Queue

Criticism
I don't think this helps (to be brutally honest). We deliberately design everything to avoid updating dynamic meta-data manually; things that aren't updated automatically, we either abandon entirely (that happened to the portals), or look for ways to convert to greater automation. For the review queue, the central place where it all happens is Category:Review. --Pi zero (talk) 13:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * True of course, but the thing that actually makes me think is: Murray news, important, and should be there before the finals.Barça news, about to lose freshness. Kerber's news: hot and fresh. AGastya (talk) 15:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You're enthusiastic, and you contribute, and all that attitude is very valuable to Wikinews and I don't want to stifle. I feel I should point out, though, that I don't know any other regular Wikinews contributor who routinely floods the review queue; it's very rare for any veteran Wikinewsie to submit a second article while one they've submitted is still on the queue.  Flooding the queue hurts everyone; it discourages reviewers, it discourages writers, it increases review load by more than the sum of the articles queued (the key resource for review is capacity to make complex decisions, which any given person can only do so much of in a day, and flooding the review queue means that before a reviewer can even start to spend decision-making capacity on a review they have to spend more of their limited supply on deciding which article to review).  Most Wikinews writers, if they have several stories they'd like to cover all happening at once, are much more likely to make a hard choice as to which one to submit.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Barça defeats Atletico 2–1, becomes table toppers...I will write it later. But, the thing I submit them is I read somewhere here at someones userpage that you write an article and you move on. Well, it is difficult to see the number of articles waiting here. But just two days, I promise. My colleges' fest will be over and I won't have time again. AGastya (talk) 16:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I have to agree with Pi zero; this page really serves no useful purpose. If an article lacks sources, or does not meet minimum length requirements, you need not be a reviewer to flag it as such. The review template can be removed, and replaced with develop &mdash; adding a parameter commenting as-to why it is not ready for review. There are various other templates under the article templates category which can also be used; these often have the advantage of not showing the 'submit for review' button, thus discouraging drive-by attempts to submit pointless articles. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * But it is not for flagging, but to choose which article to review by either having idea (Ed Sheeran article can be reviewed quicker than Taylor Swift's) or by parameters like freshness or trending. Agastya Chandrakant   ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰  11:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Reviewers are likely to pick what they know they can complete a review on. Other factors which come into play are the type of news. For example, I consider Sport and Entertainment articles to be . Thus, I'd always prioritise 'hard' news &mdash; even if that means taking a newbie's contribution and disqualifying myself from reviewing it by bringing it up to scratch.
 * It is possible to make an article easier to review. There are various ways to do this; either by providing details of where information is sourced from on the talk page, or doing so as inline HTML comments. The latter approach can work very well when verifying your own work prior to submission; and, can have the advantage of allowing you to trim excess sources which you might have read, but do not require to verify the actual article content. Since no two reviewers approach an article in the same way, trying to second-guess time required to review an article isn't always going to work well. Apart from the Bread and circuses issue, I often find sports submissions overly-challenging due to bizarre jargon specific to the sport involved. I know fans of a particular game will understand such, but it breaks Rule #5. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)