Talk:Bangladesh reports five new deaths due to COVID-19, a daily highest

Links to Wikipedia

I think links to Wikipedia's "coverage" of news are usually not included. They are not written in a news way (inverted pyramid, attribution) and may cause confusion. --Gryllida (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Date

Not included in the first paragraph. Date when the test came back positive. Date they gave the test. Date they got symptoms. Are they in hospital now. Date when they came from Italy. --Gryllida (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Plane

Also is anyone checking other people from that same airplane? If known. --Gryllida (talk) 21:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4553368 [Not ready]

Revision 4553368 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: A Wikinews article has to be built around a very recent focal event (preferably today or yesterday when submitted). The headline and lede should identify this event, and the lede should briefly summarize it by answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H and explaining its significance and why it's newsworthy. There should be at least two mutually independent, trust-worthy sources corroborating the focal event. Here, the focal event identified by the headline and lede is at least ten days old, so is not at all fresh (one of the requirements for newsworthiness). Some recent events, dated March 17, are mentioned but they aren't sourced, and they're at the end of the article rather than in the lede. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4553368 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:55, 18 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: A Wikinews article has to be built around a very recent focal event (preferably today or yesterday when submitted). The headline and lede should identify this event, and the lede should briefly summarize it by answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H and explaining its significance and why it's newsworthy. There should be at least two mutually independent, trust-worthy sources corroborating the focal event. Here, the focal event identified by the headline and lede is at least ten days old, so is not at all fresh (one of the requirements for newsworthiness). Some recent events, dated March 17, are mentioned but they aren't sourced, and they're at the end of the article rather than in the lede. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Editing

Should i edit this every 4 days after? Md Tanbir Islam (talk)

@Md Tanbir Islam: The object of writing a Wikinews article is for it to pass successfully through the review process to publication. (That's the first pillar at Wikinews:Pillars of writing.) --Pi zero (talk) 06:05, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4554501 [Not ready]

Revision 4554501 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Needs focus. See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Don't organize a Wikinews article chronologically; the first paragraph shouldn't describe the first event in an ongoing story that's been going on for two weeks. Rather, the article should be built around a news event: something specific and relevant that has just happened within the past day or two. The focal event for this article cannot be the first cases being reported in Bangladesh because that happened two weeks ago; you need something that happened within the past day or two; best of all would be something that happened the same day as you write the article and submit it for review. Once you've chosen that focal news event, You'll need two mutually independent trust-worthy sources corroborating the focal event. The headline should tell the most important and unique thing about the focal event. The lede —the first paragraph— should be a short, to-the-point paragraph briefly summarizing the focal event by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H about it. The remainder of the body of the article should proceed in an inverted pyramid, so-called because the most fundamental information is closest to the top (with the lede at the very top). See Wikinews:Writing an article. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4554501 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 17:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Needs focus. See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Don't organize a Wikinews article chronologically; the first paragraph shouldn't describe the first event in an ongoing story that's been going on for two weeks. Rather, the article should be built around a news event: something specific and relevant that has just happened within the past day or two. The focal event for this article cannot be the first cases being reported in Bangladesh because that happened two weeks ago; you need something that happened within the past day or two; best of all would be something that happened the same day as you write the article and submit it for review. Once you've chosen that focal news event, You'll need two mutually independent trust-worthy sources corroborating the focal event. The headline should tell the most important and unique thing about the focal event. The lede —the first paragraph— should be a short, to-the-point paragraph briefly summarizing the focal event by succinctly answering as many as reasonably possible of the five Ws and an H about it. The remainder of the body of the article should proceed in an inverted pyramid, so-called because the most fundamental information is closest to the top (with the lede at the very top). See Wikinews:Writing an article. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Page protection

{{makeprotected}} —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Md Tanbir Islam (talk • contribs) 16:26, 25 March 2020‎ (UTC)

This article is known to need renaming as part of needed improvements. I'm unclear why one would wish to disallow moving it. --Pi zero (talk) 16:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Publishing

@Pi zero should we need to change the headline or name of this article? Md Tanbir Islam (talk)

Yes, changing the focus of the article involves changing the headline, as well as the lede and, likely, the body of the article. --Pi zero (talk) 08:20, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

@Pi zero when you will publish it? Md Tanbir Islam (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

@Md Tanbir Islam: If and when it passes review, it is published. See the first pillar at Wikinews:Pillars of writing. Review comments, as above, are meant to explain why it didn't pass and, therefore, what would need to change to eliminate that obstacle to passage. --Pi zero (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

For a global audience

(and for guys like me), we're going to need some type of clarification on: "But the doctors said that they have not a lot of PP."--Bddpaux (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Name of the article

@Pi zero Which name is appropriate for this article? Md Tanbir Islam (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Refocus

The first paragraph speaks of an event which is too old. The last paragraph is too old.

My recommendations here:

• Change the headline to "Second person dies of COVID-19 in Bangladesh";
• revise the first paragraph and layout to bring this new event to the top;
• maybe add a plot of cases history, or a map.

Thank you. --Gryllida (talk) 04:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4555229 [Not ready]

Revision 4555229 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Needs sharper focus; see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Though things have improved greatly (for which, thanks), there's still a sense of encyclopedic coverage of the situation. We want a specific focal event, around which the article is then constructed. For example, here are a couple of articles about an infectious-disease situation a few months ago: "Samoan government ends state of emergency over measles outbreak" — Wikinews, January 1, 2020 "Samoan government temporarily shuts down for nationwide measles vaccination drive" — Wikinews, December 7, 2019 Re the current lede: This is presenting an overview of a situation, rather than a succinct summary of a particular event. Nowhere does the lede name a specific day on which a focal event happened. The second sentence, about how the virus spread to Bangladesh, has two problems. It does not belong in the lede, because it is detail about something that isn't the focal event for the current article; it belongs in some later paragraph. And it needs to be attributed, as the reader needs to know the source of this claim about how it spread to Bangladesh. The third sentence, about total numbers, may be part of the context for the focal event; but it too should be attributed. The headline should be a sentence, in present tense, telling the most important and unique thing about the focal event. The current headline is a noun phrase, rather than a sentence (there's no verb); and it's rather generic rather than unique. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4555229 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Needs sharper focus; see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: Though things have improved greatly (for which, thanks), there's still a sense of encyclopedic coverage of the situation. We want a specific focal event, around which the article is then constructed. For example, here are a couple of articles about an infectious-disease situation a few months ago: "Samoan government ends state of emergency over measles outbreak" — Wikinews, January 1, 2020 "Samoan government temporarily shuts down for nationwide measles vaccination drive" — Wikinews, December 7, 2019 Re the current lede: This is presenting an overview of a situation, rather than a succinct summary of a particular event. Nowhere does the lede name a specific day on which a focal event happened. The second sentence, about how the virus spread to Bangladesh, has two problems. It does not belong in the lede, because it is detail about something that isn't the focal event for the current article; it belongs in some later paragraph. And it needs to be attributed, as the reader needs to know the source of this claim about how it spread to Bangladesh. The third sentence, about total numbers, may be part of the context for the focal event; but it too should be attributed. The headline should be a sentence, in present tense, telling the most important and unique thing about the focal event. The current headline is a noun phrase, rather than a sentence (there's no verb); and it's rather generic rather than unique. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 4555510 [Not ready]

Revision 4555510 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The focus is now clear, both in the headline and in the lede. The focus is, however, six days ago, so not at all fresh. It's advisable to submit an article for review when the focus has occurred either that day, or the day before, not only because news should (of course) be as fresh as possible, but also to allow as much time as possible for the review process to work. The first sentence of the lede doesn't serve much purpose; it would be better to simply drop it, and put the sentence stating the focal event at the front. Some mention of attribution in the lede, for the focal event and for the supplementary number 45, would be good. An additional sentence at the end of the lede could say something about the overall significance of COVID-19, perhaps mentioning the international context that was mentioned in the front sentence that's being recommended for removal. I'm not sure what is meant by "The Coronavirus has already spread out in the maximum cities of Bangladesh." It sounds like the sort of thing that should specify as-of-went it was announced, and by whom (attribution), but, again, it also needs clarification. The final sentence (about increasing day by day) can probably be dropped without loss. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4555510 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: The focus is now clear, both in the headline and in the lede. The focus is, however, six days ago, so not at all fresh. It's advisable to submit an article for review when the focus has occurred either that day, or the day before, not only because news should (of course) be as fresh as possible, but also to allow as much time as possible for the review process to work. The first sentence of the lede doesn't serve much purpose; it would be better to simply drop it, and put the sentence stating the focal event at the front. Some mention of attribution in the lede, for the focal event and for the supplementary number 45, would be good. An additional sentence at the end of the lede could say something about the overall significance of COVID-19, perhaps mentioning the international context that was mentioned in the front sentence that's being recommended for removal. I'm not sure what is meant by "The Coronavirus has already spread out in the maximum cities of Bangladesh." It sounds like the sort of thing that should specify as-of-went it was announced, and by whom (attribution), but, again, it also needs clarification. The final sentence (about increasing day by day) can probably be dropped without loss. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 4555613 [Not ready]

Revision 4555613 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The first paragraph of this article, also called as Lede mentions when the event took place, that is, March 24. That happened a week ago. It is no longer "new" to be newsworthy. It is not fresh, as anything that happened more than three days ago is just not news anymore. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4555613 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The first paragraph of this article, also called as Lede mentions when the event took place, that is, March 24. That happened a week ago. It is no longer "new" to be newsworthy. It is not fresh, as anything that happened more than three days ago is just not news anymore. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 4555645 [Not ready]

Revision 4555645 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Now, this is a blatant lie. Changing the date of confirmation of the death from 24 March to 31 March: one of the two has got to be wrong. None of the sources are newer than a week, so how can they possibly report something that happened today? Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4555645 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not ready: NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Now, this is a blatant lie. Changing the date of confirmation of the death from 24 March to 31 March: one of the two has got to be wrong. None of the sources are newer than a week, so how can they possibly report something that happened today? Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision

What can i do now? Please tell me. I am sorry for my mistake. But i did not know about the 3 days rules. Thank you. Md Tanbir Islam

Review of revision 4555776 [Not ready]

Revision 4555776 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The currently presented focal event was a week ago, so is nowhere near fresh. It looks as if a sixth death has been confirmed in Bangladesh, for which a refocus and two mutually independent sources would be wanted. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4555776 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: See below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: The currently presented focal event was a week ago, so is nowhere near fresh. It looks as if a sixth death has been confirmed in Bangladesh, for which a refocus and two mutually independent sources would be wanted. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Dates

Hi

• "Two of the infected persons were expatriates who recently returned from Italy on March 8. They died on March 18, the IEDCR confirmed to the media on Sunday."
• "Second death on March 21, third death on March 23, fourth death occurred after March 23 and fifth death occurred after 25 March."

This is contradictory.

Which one is true? --Gryllida (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Couldn't verify the first sentence. Removed. If you have source, please link here. Gryllida (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Two more fatalities, total eight

https://www.indiatoday.in/world/story/covid-19-bangladesh-reports-two-more-deaths-toll-rises-to-8-1663327-2020-04-04

Took it off the review queue.

Will update later today if nobody beats me to it.

If you can do this, please do the update ASAP. You can see how I did it in the history, and repeat the same procedure:

• move the first paragraph down
• make a copy of it above, stating the facts (dates, ages etc) of the new cases
• remove wikilinks and shorten the paragraph which was previously the first
• check the relative dates anywhere in the text.

Thanks

Regards, --Gryllida (talk) 23:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Md Tanbir Islam: Could you possibly check this again? There are four TODO items, marked in article. I will find someone who can do the chart; please do as many of the others as you can? Gryllida (talk) 10:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Source

Hi Green Giant

"On Tuesday March 31, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina had previously said the end date of the lockdown was moved from April 4 to April 9, but businesses would be allowed to open during this period if they followed some restrictions. She said, "The extension of the lockdown from April 4 to April 9 would help complete a 14-day cycle for recovery and testing." She also said to cancel events which involved public gatherings, including the Bengali New Year (April 14) celebrations. What is the source for this paragraph?"

The source is here:

• "Coronavirus death toll rises to six in Bangladesh, positive cases surge to 54" — Deccan Herald, April 1, 2020

I'm not sure why it disappeared during editing. --Gryllida (talk) 01:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4557619 [Not ready]

Revision 4557619 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: The comments by the Prime Minister in the sixth paragraph could not be found in the sources. NPOV: Passed Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I’ve left some hidden comments in the text. This proposed article has been through so many revisions that I think we have done material that is muddled up. I would suggest to keep only the first five paragraphs. The article doesn’t need the PM's photo or the comments she made. It also doesn’t need the material about the earliest cases. Most of all, for an article of this size, we should try to keep the number of sources proportionate. Ten sources is too many sources. We should keep the first four sources (April 4-7) and jettison the rest. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4557619 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: The comments by the Prime Minister in the sixth paragraph could not be found in the sources. NPOV: Passed Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: I’ve left some hidden comments in the text. This proposed article has been through so many revisions that I think we have done material that is muddled up. I would suggest to keep only the first five paragraphs. The article doesn’t need the PM's photo or the comments she made. It also doesn’t need the material about the earliest cases. Most of all, for an article of this size, we should try to keep the number of sources proportionate. Ten sources is too many sources. We should keep the first four sources (April 4-7) and jettison the rest. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

""The IEDCR screened many people in this periodwhich period is this referring to? and detected the virus on some people's bodies. They included people who had returned home recently from abroad, said Dr Meerjady. "" it is difficult to find source for this, this paragraph can be removed

""Two of those infected are male and the other is female," Dr Flora told reporters at a press briefing in Dhaka.We don’t need this sentence because it can be incorporated into the one before it easily." I don't mind this sentence removal.

"COVID-19 is a respiratory virus which spreads through only people No longer true. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared it a pandemic on March 11.This is not the best place for this sentence - maybe in the second paragraph?" Remove the first sentence, move the second one to the end of the second paragraph.

Let me know if you would like me to do these changes now.

Thanks, --Gryllida (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest cutting the article in half. The first five paragraphs seem to be a realistic article. The remaining four are going to make more work than is beneficial to us. I would also keep only the first four sources because I think they cover the information adequately. I don’t mind reviewing it again when it is ready but it’s late here so I can do it when I wake up in about six hours. -Green Giant (talk) 01:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. Corrected. Left the sources in though -- they confirm the days when the deaths occurred (the source data for the graph), I couldn't find it in IEDCR's plots. Gryllida (talk) 01:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4557649 [Passed]

Revision 4557649 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Almost all review suggestions have been implemented. 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 4557649 of this article has been reviewed by Green Giant (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 01:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Almost all review suggestions have been implemented. 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.

edit protected

{{editprotected}} Hello. While there are five deaths in Bangladesh for that day, make sure the record wasn’t broken. Also how many in TOTAL were there? Sorry I am on mobile so I can’t make it italicized. 2600:387:5:807:0:0:0:7A (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

A news article is a "snapshot in time"; it is what things looked like, objectively, at the moment of publication. --Pi zero (talk) 19:22, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Edit

A contributor has requested that an edit be made to this protected page. Once this request is completed by an administrator, please remove this template. You may wish to ask for the help of a volunteer to make your requested edit.

A contributor has requested that an edit be made to this protected page. Once this request is completed by an administrator, please remove this template. You may wish to ask for the help of a volunteer to make your requested edit.

"Anadolu Agency, a local news outlet..." What? AA is Turkish. Heavy Water (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Also it shouldn't be italicized. Heavy Water (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Do you reckon it is worth a {{correction}} or re-wording to something like "Anadolu Agency's local correspondent"? SVTCobra 20:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

@Heavy Water I would like to add a correction. I agree it is Turkish and not local. Why should it not be italicized? Gryllida (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Gryllida: I think generally wire agencies fall under the category of news orgs whose names we don't italicize under WN:SG#Names of publications and articles. Heavy Water (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, and what about this query? Gryllida (talk) 02:56, 18 December 2024 (UTC)