Talk:Austrian People's Party wins majority national election, Sebastian Kurz to become world's youngest national leader at 31

Review of revision 4356142 [Passed]

Revision 4356142 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The matter of second and third place got a bit muddled. The face veil thing ran into difficulties. 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 4356142 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:59, 16 October 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The matter of second and third place got a bit muddled. The face veil thing ran into difficulties. 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.

@Pi zero: I could not find any sources which mentioned burqa ban was not too right. Could you please tell me where you saw it so that I can make that line meaningful?
acagastya PING ME! 03:24, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I have good news and bad news. The good news is that there are two sources on the subject cited at w:burqa#Austria. The bad news is that one of them is in German and the other is in Swedish. --Pi zero (talk) 03:52, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Yes, I found those sources. I could not find an English source and thus, I asked you.
acagastya PING ME! 04:18, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: The whole burqa-ban trend in Europe is of interest, as a topic in its own right. My difficulty is that, as presented, it's not clear what it's doing in an article about the election. I take it you're trying to fit it in as an example of a related trend to the right; but for that, the article needs to connect it to the right. Saying something about what the FPÖ said about it would likely do that; I'm not that in the current sources (which, since you've pointed out they are only used for that part of the text, I have currently commented out along with the paragraph.)

I have, btw, verified the text in question. --Pi zero (talk) 12:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm taking an extra moment to recheck some of the shark-suit thing, which I'm suddenly unsure of. --Pi zero (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: I've proposed an additional edit; could you review it? --Pi zero (talk) 17:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: I did not add that line of information because I thought is was not neutral, and provided opinions. That person also happens to be European Islamophobia Report editor. I would prefer removing the whole paragraph, than to provide some other journalist's opinions. I know we have spent a lot of time on this, and I am really thankful that you reviewed it on time (and it was published just a minute before the date changed), but doing that, we might be diluting the neutrality we maintain on this project.
acagastya PING ME! 17:29, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: The article works without the burqa thing, of course, though it would have been good to find a way to integrate the ban into the flow of the article. Fwiw — based on my understanding of things in en.wp that I'm guessing are likely correct in this case — Hafez is not a journalist as such. It's common for news orgs to have academic contacts they can call on for quotes, in fact there's been occasional discussion of lining up some experts like that willing to provide Wikinews with quick comments within their expertise. The European Islamophobia Report is, apparently, an annual report to the UN since 2015. He does clearly bring a known personal bias to the subject, which is not necessarily a problem for us provided we let our readers know about it. --Pi zero (talk) 17:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Pi zero: It was a personal opinion, I thought. Even if it is not, the article isn't really about burqa ban. Besides, that shark-head thing was to show it is not limited to burqa. (Have a look at the link in the tweet link) And I think we are "marrying the article". We should leave it now -- Netherlands is yet to decide about it. And that time, I would not miss this information.
acagastya PING ME! 18:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it would have been nice if we could have made it work, but I think you're right, we gave it a good try and now it's time to move on. --Pi zero (talk) 18:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

there might be a way. Only if Tyrol5 or Green Giant could help us with that German source, translating what it meant. CC @Tyrol5, Green Giant:
acagastya PING ME! 18:22, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Keeping in mind, time is growing short (the article was published at one minute before midnight yesterday). --Pi zero (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: did you confirm the AP syndicate? Lost it somewhere in commenting and accepting.
acagastya PING ME! 11:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I remember at some point sighting a version that had it. --Pi zero (talk) 11:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Preponement

It seems tolerably clear in this case. My general instinct is to be wary of it; however commonly used it may be in India, I don't recall having ever seen the word in my life before it came up in a submitted article about Japan earlier this year. The question here isn't how many people use the term, but how many people might have more difficulty understanding our reportage because of it. I suspect how much difficulty the word presents may vary depending on context; in this case, my basic impulse was to look for simpler wording that I had confidence would be more instantly understood in my part of the world (hoping the wording would be similarly lucid in areas where prepone would also be readily understood); though on consideration of the context here, it does seem the meaning of prepone can be readily deduced (as it's preceded by the observation that the election had been scheduled for next year). --Pi zero (talk) 15:59, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Language choice

@Pi zero: Re:"since we're English Wikinews, seems we should show the Englihs names and provide the German languages by mouseover", you were the one who introduced me to {{translation note}}, and as far as I understand, it exists to display text in foreign language, and the mouseover provides the English translation. We have used to Spanish/Portuguese name for Copa America in those articles. You have also added how to use the markup for Copa America. We have used the template for the French motto for Emmanuel Macron wins French presidential election race as well. So I don't understand why we should not use the party names in the German language -- after all, the acronym uses the letters used in the German language.
acagastya PING ME! 16:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The usual practice is to show the English text, with the non-English as a mouseover; much the same as {{translated quote}} but without the quotation marks. The example in the template documentation also shows English text with non-English mouseover. --Pi zero (talk) 16:44, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

So why didn't we follow if for Macron's article, or for Copa America articles? You had mentioned the markup on Copa America's page, which raises the question.
acagastya PING ME! 17:04, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

There are (I was thinking I should have mentioned this) cases where we've done it either way. I think several factors would make me more inclined to allow a non-English primary form: if it's short, if it's commonly used in English discourse to refer to the thing, if its meaning comes across reasonably clearly ("Copa América" seems imho not hard to work out), if its meaning isn't too critical to reading our reportage (it's good, I'd think, if one can immediately understand the meanings of the names of political parties since those names represent what the party wants to say about itself). --Pi zero (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC)