Talk:American Museum of Natural History removes statue of Theodore Roosevelt

Can anyone add on to this so it doesn't go stale??? If not I tried, sorry. Groggytortoise4121 (talk) 05:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4657661 [Passed]

Revision 4657661 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4657661 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Paywalled sources

This conversation has been marked for the community's attention. Please remove the {{flag}} when the discussion is complete or no longer important.

Very concerned @Bddpaux: reviewed & published this article that sources The Washington Post, a paywalled source that therefore violates Wikinews:PAYWALL. Hope someone more experienced than I could help speedily resolve this issue. --JJLiu112 —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 23 January 2022

Also @JJLiu112, @Xbspiro, the author of the article User:Groggytortoise4121 had just created his/her account on January 21, 2022 which is just 2 days ago. So getting the first article published this fast is a bit strange. 2006nishan178713^t@lk 14:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I encourage an administrator dialogue. Regardless of what you think should be the paywall policy going forward, I would seriously consider such a conversation in the context of an article that was published, and is on the main page, which breaks current practice. --JJLiu112 (talk) 06:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

(non-administrator comment) Well, for what it's worth, I totally agree with you.

Some other things caught my attention here: the sources aren't organized from newest to oldest; the image credit says "at Flickr" instead of linking to the image or simply naming the photographer; the image caption is confusingly worded, and Wikinews always uses MDY dates; the last sentence says "it was announced"-who announced it? Heavy Water (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

A general comment on this topic. WN:PAYWALL has been in effect for over a decade. The gist of the justification for paid-access sources can never be used is "everyone" needs to be able to verify it. Well, what about stuff that is sent to Scoop? I, for one, don't have access to Scoop. I have to trust the reviewer. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me if the reviewer happens to have already paid for access to a site like WP or WSJ, we should trust that they were able to verify the information. Otherwise, we are suggesting either collusion (as in sock-puppetry or meat-puppetry) or just downright sloppy reviewing. My disagreement with the restrictive nature of the policy aside, it is a serious allegation. Cheers, --SVTCobra 08:07, 12 March 2023 (UTC)