Talk:Chile: Pope Francis stirs outrage with 'slander' comment

Review of revision 4377426 [Passed]

Revision 4377426 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Just as we need to identify the sport involved in a sports article, etc., we do need to name the religion involved here. It doesn't have to be painful, but (heh) I was bemused when I did a string search and found the word "Catholic" didn't occur on the page. Which said, I felt no need to intervene in the headline, as anyone who doesn't know what a pope is can find out from the article, and anyone who knows of some other pope (there are two in Alexandria, I gather?) can make a pretty good guess about which one is involved from the country named in the headline. There were a few points I didn't find; that I recall, no sign of accusations of covering up more than one priest's abuses, no indication of how much of the Chile visit was meetings with victims, unclear whether the remarks in Santiago were to a crowd (which I could easily have missed evidence of from an image somewhere, as my browser has not being cooperative about images). Nuance that came up a couple of times here: I tend to avoid connectives like "but", "however", and the like, as they can subtly comment on the relationships between facts being reported. 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 4377426 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Just as we need to identify the sport involved in a sports article, etc., we do need to name the religion involved here. It doesn't have to be painful, but (heh) I was bemused when I did a string search and found the word "Catholic" didn't occur on the page. Which said, I felt no need to intervene in the headline, as anyone who doesn't know what a pope is can find out from the article, and anyone who knows of some other pope (there are two in Alexandria, I gather?) can make a pretty good guess about which one is involved from the country named in the headline. There were a few points I didn't find; that I recall, no sign of accusations of covering up more than one priest's abuses, no indication of how much of the Chile visit was meetings with victims, unclear whether the remarks in Santiago were to a crowd (which I could easily have missed evidence of from an image somewhere, as my browser has not being cooperative about images). Nuance that came up a couple of times here: I tend to avoid connectives like "but", "however", and the like, as they can subtly comment on the relationships between facts being reported. 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.

Implement WN:IAR and change photo?

I know that, per WN:Archive conventions, content should not be changed after more than 24 hours passed. However, I think either File:Francisco en la PUC (25879476708) - headshot.jpg or File:Francisco en la PUC (25879476708) - cropped.jpg is more suitable image than the 2014 one used in the article. Can WN:IAR be invoked to allow image change in the article? --George Ho (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I am in favor of the change. What about you, @Pi zero:? ... Thanks, George Ho. I actually searched for such an image on Commons. Maybe it hadn't been categorized yet. Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Truthfully, I don't think it would be appropriate. If we are especially dissatisfied with the image choice, that implies that the change would be especially substantive. --Pi zero (talk) 23:19, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

I think it lends to our credibility as news to have current photos rather than ancient file photos. It doesn't change any of the text of the article. Imho, it is not a substantive change. Actually, I think it is far less of a change than changing an infobox on a 10-year-old article. (I didn't look it up, but I think the 24 hour window is not in policy, but in guidelines or buried deep in archiving guidelines.) Cheers, --SVTCobra 23:31, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

My memory is that the 24-hour figure was settled on by a rather hefty consensus of veteran Wikinewsies, making it quite solid. The archival status of image choice is extremely well-established. --Pi zero (talk) 23:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

We aren't talking about the archive, though. Anyway, it would just be "cool" to have a photo from the actual trip to Chile. I am happy with the article either way. --SVTCobra 23:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)