Talk:Brother of murdered Pakistani social media star sentenced to life

Image of Baloch

I couldn't find any images under "Qandeel Baloch" or "Fouzia Azeem" on Wikimedia Commons. Wikipedia uses this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Qandeel_Baloch.jpg, but it's copyrighted and given under a fair use rationale. I'm reasonably confident that it would be okay to use on Wikinews, but this has never been my forte. Thoughts? Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:30, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

We can't use the en.wp image, because it's from BBC. Our Fair Use policy, which I understand was hammered out in close consultation with Wikimedia legal, says we cannot claim fair use for any image whose copyright is held by another news org. --Pi zero (talk) 14:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Pi zero. I do like to check. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: A screenshot from one of her self-published videos should qualify for fair use, if you can track one down. Not sure if her social media accounts have been shut down. --SVTCobra 16:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4516923 [Not ready]

Revision 4516923 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Quoting reportage by other news orgs, until and unless they become part of the story, is absolutely not allowed. The no-regrets quote is quoted reportage, although this is not clear in our article. The description of Baloch by Reeves is quoted reportage, and admits to being such. In the second-to-last paragraph, the clause about the forced marriage is substantially from source (and quite long). In the last paragraph, the middle sentence is substantially from source. 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 4516923 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: See below. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Quoting reportage by other news orgs, until and unless they become part of the story, is absolutely not allowed. The no-regrets quote is quoted reportage, although this is not clear in our article. The description of Baloch by Reeves is quoted reportage, and admits to being such. In the second-to-last paragraph, the clause about the forced marriage is substantially from source (and quite long). In the last paragraph, the middle sentence is substantially from source. 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.

Title

It seems to me, Qandeel Baloch was a social media personality first and feminist activist second. I have seen her compared to w:Kim Kardashian. And was it not not this aspect which drew the ire of the cleric? --SVTCobra 23:48, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure it was ire. I got the impression that he gave her his hat to wear in the picture and that other people were angry. The sources don't say, though. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:16, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Either way, I submit she was more famous for things only tangentially related to feminism. --SVTCobra 01:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I see. They took a bunch of friendly photos together, one in which he let her wear his hat, then he got reamed for hanging out with a "disreputable woman," and from there her parents thought perhaps he'd had something to do with her being killed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't get that deep into the story. I'd only read that he was tried but found innocent and celebrated afterwards. I had made the leap to think he inspired her brother. Anyway, thanks for updating the title. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4517503 [Passed]

Revision 4517503 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Distance on those two passages late in the article, mentioned in the earlier review, though addressed during revision for second submission, needed further addressed, which I did. Part of the difficulty seemed to be that a source sentence was being mapped to a synthesis sentence that said pretty much the same thing (in one case, exactly the same thing). Breaking up passages and widely scattering the pieces across the article is much better when possible, though naturally it's not something a reviewer can demonstrate in a review. Regarding the number of alleged accomplices, in addition to BBC saying six and NPR saying five, I see AP said four. 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 4517503 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Distance on those two passages late in the article, mentioned in the earlier review, though addressed during revision for second submission, needed further addressed, which I did. Part of the difficulty seemed to be that a source sentence was being mapped to a synthesis sentence that said pretty much the same thing (in one case, exactly the same thing). Breaking up passages and widely scattering the pieces across the article is much better when possible, though naturally it's not something a reviewer can demonstrate in a review. Regarding the number of alleged accomplices, in addition to BBC saying six and NPR saying five, I see AP said four. 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.