Talk:Glenbard East defeated by Benet Academy in Illinois basketball sectional

Review of revision 977000 [Passed]

Revision 977000 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me. 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 977000 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 05:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me. 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.

Calebrw, are you trying to set standards for how local news can be before it is newsworthy enough for Wikinews? We have had number articles in this line.--SVTCobra 21:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think he intended to pass it; there might be something wrong with the gadget. Benny the mascot (talk) 21:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sounds like a gadget bug. A failed article would not likely have a comment of "looks good to me". Tempodivalse [talk] 21:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Wait, it was an ip changing the template after the review. Tempodivalse [talk] 21:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict]Not my fault :D (sorry, its rare that that happens). talk page was vandalized after the review - [1] . Cheers. Bawolff ☺☻ 21:43, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

My bad. I should have noticed the anon edit. --SVTCobra 23:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Newsworthiness

Although that anon user did wrongly vandalize the reviewing template on this page, the point that he was trying to make is still a legitimate one nonetheless. After I posted a vandalism warning on his talk page, he said this in his reply defending his actions: "Am I to understand that whenever my local school happens to have a game that results in some kind of score, I'm entitled to consider it newsworthy enough to report it to the whole world and post it on the Main Page of Wikinews." When you think about it, he's right. In my opinion, the heart of this matter is something that should be seriously addressed as it pertains to articles such as this one. PSD27 (talk) 22:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the newsworthiness policy was written vaguely for a reason: we simply can't draw a line between what is and isn't newsworthy. Many local news could be considered not newsworthy, but so can other more global news. Try reading this archived discussion for an idea on where the community might stand. Brian McNeil's description of newsworthiness is quite interesting: "is of interest to anyone in the town, possibly people in other parts of the state, and is clear enough that someone on the other side of the world could read it and find it interesting." Benny the mascot (talk) 23:09, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you're saying. However there is a fine line between local news and non-news. As the anon user pointed out, what if everybody wrote articles about their local high school basketball teams? Then Wikinews would just be a collection of youth basketball scores and recaps. I am all for local news when it's actually news. I also have no problem with coverage of major sporting events ranging from the World Series to the World Cup—even NCAA Basketball in most cases is fine to cover. But let's be frank here, how many people outside of this Chicago suburb really care about this? With these type articles, you are not focusing on the worldwide demographic that we tend to cater to. You're merely writing about something that is completely irrelevant outside of this town. PSD27 (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Well the same logic can be applied to other articles we publish (especially many of our crime-related articles). Are we going to stop reporting on local car crashes simply because they are of no interest to people outside the town? Will we stop reporting on misdemeanors simply because the rest of the world might not care? As Bawolff has said, local news won't be published on the Main Page once our daily volume gets high enough. Until that happens, I think it's best that we adopt a loose policy on newsworthiness.

PS: A basketball sectional is equivalent to a regional competition. I'd say that's pretty important to high schoolers throughout the area, not just in the town.

Benny the mascot (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is a huge difference between crime-related articles and high school basketball articles. Furthermore, I think it is fair to say that more people would be interested in local general interest pieces than in the youth sport blurbs, but that's a whole other topic. Either way, you know where I stand. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. PSD27 (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. Benny the mascot (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Some food for thought are the following news:

• User:Edbrown05/Grass in Uncle G's back garden continues to grow
• Tennessee town mulls 'stop work order' as construction of controversial grain tanks begins
• Interview with Sean Semper-Whyte, City Council candidate for Ward 6 in Mississauga, Canada
• Quaker website editor launches music podcast programme (this when did not hit Main Page, as most Quaker news was considered to local at time).

I personally think local news should be encouraged, however in some cases (not saying that this is a case of that, just saying in general) it should not be on the main page, and instead restricted to portals that it is relevant to. Bawolff ☺☻ 23:45, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can put the issue to rest by keeping local news on their relevant portals only. Would that be possible right now? Benny the mascot (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Like perhaps we can update [Category:Local only] to accommodate such articles. PSD27 (talk)

No, we might have to divide the articles by region. Benny the mascot (talk) 00:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with having local news on the likes of Portal:North America (at least for the time being). I think it will be quite a while before we are big enough where we would want to eliminate local news from regional portals. The Local news category can be made to work right now mostly. The only sticky issue is that it would be difficult to make it not be on the main page, and still be picked up by google news. (otoh when have we ever cared about doing things cleanly). RSS feeds are handled through T:LN so would not be affected by the change. Bawolff ☺☻ 00:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we can do an updated 'local only' category divided by continent, country, region, city, and so on. Moreover, instead of being featured under the "latest news" template, perhaps we can put a link to this local category on the Main Page and it could say something to the effect of "Click here for local news near you." Just an idea for the future. PSD27 (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I really don't think we have enough local content to warrant that at this time. In the future (you know, when we take over the world) that may be a good idea (perhaps combined with geo-location goodness). But for now, we simply don't have enough content to do that. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Just a question, but would anyone object to this being transferred to the Water Cooler? I just stumbled upon it, and find it both interesting and important, but it's hardly in an obvious spot; might be more noticeable if it was there. Just a thought. C628 (talk) 01:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That'd be great if you could move it there. Please do. PSD27 (talk) 01:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Same here. This is a discussion the project needs to have. Tempodivalse [talk] 01:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict]. Moved to Wikinews:Water_cooler/proposals#WebCite_for_Google.2FYahoo_hosted_wire_stories. Bawolff ☺☻ 01:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously? I just moved it to Wikinews:Water_cooler/policy#Newsworthiness...oops. C628 (talk) 01:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

I'll undo mine; yours looks more professional. C628 (talk) 01:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)