User talk:Moni3/Disaster

Nice how-to guide; not only for confused newbies, but for frustrated, experienced users who need practical reminders. APK whisper in my ear  20:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I'm not really sure what to write for the second week or further on... --Moni3 (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * A discussion of WP:RECENTISM should be incorporated.
 * Have an airline crash person look at it (Fvasconcellos, Crum375) to expand beyond natural diseasters.
 * Tony1 is exceptionally good (beyond even his norm) at turning these kinds of things into really snazzy publications; call him in?
 * In the first week (or later?), watch for copyvios; inexperienced editors may descend and copy paste in text.
 * Replace sources that are known to eventually go dead with higher quality sources right away ... that is, things like Reuters, Yahoo that go dead should be replaced with media sources that are known to be enduring, like New York Times. They usually are all saying more or less the same thing, so weed out lesser quality sources right away, stick with the top sources. This will save time on checking for dead links later, and help with article integrity.

I don't think it will be ready for publication until you're in to at least the second week of the event and can see what needs to be done after heavy editing settles down.

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:44, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. Thanks for the eyes. I'll ask Fvasconcellos and Crum375 if they have anything more to add. I already caught a copyvio and forgot about it. Thanks for the reminder. --Moni3 (talk) 02:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Watch for changes in tone and tense, as of dates on data and events, things you don't want to have to go back in and change later.
 * Ask some of the WT:ITN editors to look in here? I don't know who they might be.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 02:20, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Tense I have already addressed. What about tone specifically? --Moni3 (talk) 02:26, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Specifically? I dunno :)  By the way, Miami Herald links go dead after, I think, seven days, so should be replaced early on.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:56, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, they suck. But I have LexisNexis. Keep title. Search later. Lather. Rinse. Repeat. --Moni3 (talk) 05:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I came here from WT:ITN and I have to say, as someone who frequently works on articles about current events, these are good guidelines- a nice how-to guide mainly for newcomers to such things but also for more experienced editors. I particularly like the talk page template- if we'd had that at Fort Hood shooting when that broke, it could have saved a lot of time and energy. I also agree with the comment above on temporary links- I believe Yahoo! news and possibly Google's hosted news from AFP tend to go dead quickly. It's also worth mentioning something about reliability of sources- there's rarely anything a tabloid newspaper could provide that wasn't already covered in a more respectable publication. Perhaps put something in about ref names- keeping them unambiguous to avoid confusion and duplication. God work. HJMitchell    You rang?   19:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, HJMitchell. I incorporated your points. Would it be worth it to get more response from WP:ITN, or is the Signpost mention enough to attract more suggestions?
 * Nevermind, I see it is posted on the ITN talk page already. --Moni3 (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Considering that the template is a suggestion for the talk page of a disaster article, as opposed to the article itself, I strongly suggest using tmbox instead of ambox. As its contents constitute something of a warning and are largely style-related, I further suggest changing its type from "notice" to "style"; the yellow outline will make it a little more noticeable in the talk page over the various permanent informational boxes. Waltham, The Duke of 01:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, thank you. I had to figure out the template myself. I implemented your suggestions. --Moni3 (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, good. The new colours go well with the flames, too; the result is very warm. (Though I also liked the previous clash with the blue bar). Waltham, The Duke of 16:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This is coming on nicely. I'll see if I can get some of the other ITN regulars to take a look- WT:ITN is being consumed with a series of hot topics atm. HJMitchell    You rang?   20:06, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This is coming along very nicely indeed. I'll have some specific suggestions later today. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Of historical significance
Thanks for the thumbs up at the top, which is probably undeserved! I want to add to this discussion by saying that this "disaster" genre, and the development of protocols for its optimal management, could well be part of the seismic shift in which the traditional news media are receding in the face of falling audiences/readerships, and news is increasingly sourced via the Internet, particularly by the younger generation. Sure, WP will never have the resources to go on the ground in disaster locations; but in its synthesis and editorial NPOV judgement of news sources, it will be the first choice for many people, including even journalists. Tony  (talk)  04:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)