Wikinews

Wikinews:Featured article candidates/archive/4

< Wikinews:Featured article candidates‎ | archive
← Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Satanism: An interview with Church of Satan High Priest Peter Gilmore edit

I really liked this one, quite thought-provoking. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Votes edit

Result: Pass, no objections and unanimous support after one month Tempodivalse [talk] 14:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Successful nomination. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US, UK investigators seek 777 engine redesign to stop repeat of London jet crash edit

Although this is shorter than many FAs, I'm pretty sure this is the best English language coverage of this from any news source - that's both mainstream press and a specialist publication or two. That has to count for something. Apart from one or two pieces lifted from the Beeb, this came entirely from original sources, which are quite in-depth pieces of work and had to be read in full. (Disclaimer: some pieces, I forget which, were lifted from the NTSB) Further, I put a lot of work into trying to make a dry and technical pice into something that would appeal to a wider audience without sensationalising (Daily Fail style) or going light on detail (Guardian et al style). I'm forced to admit that I wasn't much of a team player on this one, however Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Votes edit

  • Neutral I appreciate that this took a lot of effort and time to write, and the style of writing is quite good, but I just don't think it's big enough, especially with no OR and limited images. Also, I'd prefer featured articles to be our own work, whereas this is partially lifted from the NTSB reports. It's a solid, above-average piece, i'm just unsure it's FA quality. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support It helps to give you a good visual impression of what's going on, but it is a bit on the short side.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rayboy8 (talk • contribs)
  • Support—your assertion that "this is the best English language coverage of this from any news source" appears to be true, and makes this—although it is on the short side—the kind of work we need to showcase. Dendodge T\C 18:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per Rayboy8 --RockerballAustralia (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Karzai declared winner of Afghan elections, runoff polls cancelled edit

This is the follow-up to my other in-depth Afghan election article. I think i did a fair job of compiling information from different sources into a pretty in-depth article, and I'd like to suggest it for FA status. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Votes edit

Result: It's made it through. General support, albeit very reserved. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

US free speech lawyer Marc Randazza discusses Glenn Beck parody edit

Another great interview which was seriously well researched. --Rayboy8 (my talk) 18:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Votes edit

  • Support. Thanks very much, it did take a bit of research. :) Cirt (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Interview itself was actually kinda brief compared to some, but it's still very good work. All the work to put the various pieces together is impressive once again. One minor niggle, we're expected to know who "the Respondent" is for a little while, then suddenly get it explained as "the Respondent's [web site owner]". I don't have any real preference wether it is explained at all or not, but it should be done at the first mention if at all. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Made a minor tweak [1]. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted with unanimous support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

One year on: IFALPA's representative to ICAO, pilot and lawyer on ongoing prosecution of Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 pilot edit

I regret the title, but otherwise I made quite a comprehensive overview of a controversial situation here. The interview itself has short answers and his refusal to speculate got it off to a bad start, but the second half produces plenty of insight and damning criticism of the investigative process. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Votes edit

Promoted with unanimous support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Creator of website satirizing Glenn Beck on winning domain name case edit

I believe that this was a very good interview and it was very in-depth. Rayboy8 (my talk) 14:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Votes edit

Promoted with unanimous support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal threatened by possible lawsuit edit

I thought that this could potentially be a good featured article. Quite a lot of this is first hand. Rayboy8 (my talk) 14:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Votes edit

Promoted with unanimous support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Promoted. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

China offers Africa financial aid including $10 billion in loans edit

I literally sat down and thought 'I'd like to write a featured article today'. Did I manage it? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Votes edit

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Swine flu: recent developments worldwide edit

Nominating another one of my lengthy swine flu pieces. While there's no OR and not many people contributed to it, i think that i did a decent job of combining information from different sources into an in-depth article, and that it's comprehensive enough for an FA. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • There is an unbalance in the reporting. This would be due in part to limitations in the sources, not really your fault. The individual sections are fine, with more coverage for the worse hit, but "Egypt, Bulgaria, and Nicaragua each reported their first case, while Lebanon reported three" and don't get sections, whereas Vietnam gets one with four cases, only one a new development. I get the thinking behind this, but often the first case was the most interesting, when various countries had their initial reactions. There are also a couple of prose issues - Russia: "It is currently uncertain how he obtained the virus" makes it sound like he collected it on purpose and put it in his pocket, like a rare stone or banned chemical. Turkey: "...through a connected flight over Turkey entered to İstanbul Atatürk International Airport" - clumsy and doesn't make much sense. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment map fixed, please don't let the Commoners delete the new version. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Result: Failed due to the prose issues and problems with coverage Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Philippines ferry disaster: ship owner sues over toxic cargo; recovery deadline set & more edit

I'm nominating this because I disaprove of the fact that Brian is gaining a monopoly on FAs I feel that I did a very good job of collecting together all the various bits and pieces going on here from local news sources to create a very comprehensive coverage of what was a fairly hectic time with that story. Downpoints: There are effectively only two sources here since there are several differant articles from each source, and that title. I think an ancient discussion on my talk concerned this; although I came up with an alternative, for whatever reason the title never changed. BTW, I can think of one or two other possible candidates that may be better than this but unless people say they don't mind I won't put any more up for now to prevent a flood of me. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

  • I've sorta come to the conclusion the trophy cabinet bit has to go on my userpage. I need to revamp the whole thing; I'm no fan of the "stamp-collecting" of userboxes and language-proficiency shtick; I just want a "more professional" page, and I'm looking at a real headache finding a photo of me I'm happy to let loose on Commons. It certainly won't be the one used elsewhere because that is my passport photo, I'm not sure about the wisdom of that and, I may have ceded rights in using it for my ID. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could never be bothered fixing up my userpage. It's one of these 'maybe one day' things. If I was going to boast of anything on my userpage it would be that Nazi interview, plus the project I'm working on, and that's it. Anyway, we're drifting off-topic.... Back to work for me. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes edit

Result: Promoted, support unanimous if a bit reserved Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Shimon Peres discusses the future of Israel edit

How come nobody ever nommed this? We made history with this, dammit! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments edit

Votes edit

Result: Promoted. Of course ;). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
← Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Featured_article_candidates/archive/4&oldid=4514854"