Talk:Entomological Society of America renames invasive moth

Paywall

@Darkfrog24: New York Times is paywalled, kindly replace the NYT source with some other appropriate source. 2006nishan178713^t@lk 08:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@2006nishan178713: Yes, I know. The NYT source is here at this time for two reasons: 1) NYT (or NPR but on the actual radio) is often where I read it first and I want my fellow Wikinewsies to know that: It's for the Wikinews team, not the Wikinews readers. It often looks like I put facts in the article and then go looking for sources that support those facts. This is because that's exactly what I'm doing, but not because I made anything up. Rather, I read the facts on NYT or heard them on the radio and I'm looking for written, accessible sites that have them. 2) Once I have NYT set up in Wikinews' source format, it's much easier to use it on other Wikis, as I have done here on the Simple English Wikipedia's (brand spankin' new) article on the Spongy moth.

In other words, the plan was always to remove the New York Times before hitting review.

As for this particular article, it looks like the Science News Lag has done us up again: The actual announcement of the name change may have been last week. For some reason, it's just hitting the mainstream outlets now. It happens. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm.... But what if another drafter who also subscribes to NYT sees it, doesn't know why it's there and does work on the article, submits it for review... Hmm... I must ponder this. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:53, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Turns out the vote was last week but the announcement was this week. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarification and co-operation. 2006nishan178713^t@lk 15:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Right now my conclusion is to keep doing this but to be way more obvious about it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The one time where we could mix up "Entomylogical" and "Etomylogical" and still have the article make sense. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:09, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Language category

@2006nishan178713: To answer the question I've inferred from this edit summary [1], I added the language cat because this article is about names and language. We used the language cat just last week in another article about replacing offensive names: U.S. government task force moves to alter place names containing racial slur. I'd say it applies to this article more than that one because the new English name was chosen because of its relationship to its counterparts in other languages. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:14, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I just looked at the articles that come up when I click on the Language cat. Three of them are about the word "santorum." (ICYDK, gay activist and sex advice columnist Dan Savage asked his fans to come up with a new meaning for the last name of anti-gay politician Rick Santorum, preferably a disgusting one. They did, and it caught on like wildfire.) Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:24, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4664725 [Not ready]

Revision 4664725 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: One ind source (Chesapeake Bay is just profile); Ent Soc is obv related NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4664725 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: One ind source (Chesapeake Bay is just profile); Ent Soc is obv related NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Sources

I find this is a common issue with smaller news articles, and it does hurt, particularly as I see there was once an NYT source. Unfortunately, we require two NON-PAYWALLED, INDEPENDENT sources, which can be difficult for a much less 'newsworthy' event. I won't provide a source as that would consider me a contributor. --JJLiu112 (talk) 05:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

@JJLiu112: This is the third time this has happened, so it's time for me to ask you about your process.

There are three sources listed in the article, but you only mentioned two. You mentioned the Etymological Society source and the Chesepeake Bay source, but there is a third: NPR. The first two times you said something about there not being enough independent sources [2] [3], I thought you just didn't see the other sources already in the article. Is that what's happening here or is it something else?

Neither National Public Radio nor the Chesapeake Bay Project has any official relationship with the Etymological Society of America. (The sources supporting the event in this article are ESA and NPR; CP was for background facts.) All are mutually independent, as required under WN:PILLARS. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Non-paywalled sources are not required, for the record. Reviewers obviously need to read the sources to verify facts and check for copyvios. If a source is behind a paywall, it reduces the number of potential reviewers. If NYT is used as a source, for example, I am eliminated from the pool of reviewers because I am not a subscriber. Therefore, authors are encouraged to avoid paywalls merely to improve the chances of their articles getting published. Cheers, --SVTCobra 16:10, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The Chesapeake Bay is a supplementary source, I'm saying. It does not cover the change. It does not say "today, the Entomological Society did this & this", just reflects it has a former name and gives characteristics. This makes it complementary to the article: for instance, if Koalas labeled as 'endangered' in eastern states of Australia had a source that included facts about koalas and mentioned they are now endangered in some Australian states, it not be "verifying the focal news event of the article". Thankfully, it had Al Jazeera, AP & the Guardian explicitly covering the event. If we remove it, we have only one independent source (NPR), as the Entomological Society is not independent from itself. JJLiu112 (talk) 16:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@JJLiu112: Okay, that's the snag, then. So you saw the LiveScience and Bloom sources, you thought they were fine, you just thought the article needed more? Okay, I can work with this. According to WN:PILLARS, the sources have to be independent of each other, "mutually independent." They don't have to be independent of the event or of themselves. So if a draft lists only a science journal article and its own press release, that's no good because both sources were written by the same team. But an article that has a science journal article and a news article is fine. ESA and NPR are mutually independent.

I don't happen to remember which guideline or policy says "Use the source closest to the event if possible." I saw it around here somewhere a few days ago. That policy/guideline/whatever-it-was does say to use something like the ESA announcement as a source.

The other possibility is that WN:PILLARS is out of date. While I have written many Wikinews articles that used the journal article and one other independent source [4][5] that was a while ago, and it's normal for practices to shift. Is that what's happened? Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

And yes, the Chesapeake Bay source is a supplementary source. That's exactly what I was using it for. Darkfrog24 (talk) 20:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't there for either of the articles you cited. 'Two independent sources' has been understood to mean two sources which, re PILLARS, are "verifying the focal news event of the article". This I interpreted as two independent (as in, not the ESA) sources, regarding the focal event. Perhaps other reviewers had other interpretations, and I am not liable for the decisions they made. Regarding the timeliness I will not engage. JJLiu112 (talk) 00:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@JJLiu112: How do you feel about going to WN:PILLARS or main talk and proposing updating from "mutually independent" to the interpretation you give here? Because WN:CITE says it is "essential" not to add unnecessary sources to the article, it may be best to establish what counts as necessary. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It might be helpful to think of this not as an "Interpretation X is right and Y is wrong" or "Y is right and X is wrong" situation but as an "X and Y don't match" situation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4665251 [Not ready]

Revision 4665251 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: "Most likely" & previously "hapless humans" NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4665251 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: "Most likely" & previously "hapless humans" NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Please see all wikitext. --JJLiu112 (talk) 00:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4665356 [Passed]

Revision 4665356 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Required considerable prepub c/e for style. Recognise that some quips ("canopy-chomping caterpillar"; "new name for an old foe") are unhelpful and wholly inappropriate for a proper article. 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 4665356 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Required considerable prepub c/e for style. Recognise that some quips ("canopy-chomping caterpillar"; "new name for an old foe") are unhelpful and wholly inappropriate for a proper article. 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.