Talk:Indiana Democrats block session to halt labor bill

There is currently no template for an Indiana state infobox.Crtew (talk) 07:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The impasse has now started its second day and so I would change the headline. The legislative session never opened this year although committees can meet.Crtew (talk) 18:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1360172 [Not ready]

Revision 1360172 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:46, 5 January 2012 (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 start of the article needs some work. The objective is a lede that succinctly answers as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about the news event. As it now is, the first paragraph/sentence doesn't belong. The second paragraph, which is closer to what a lede should be, has a couple of problems. It needs to avoid its current use of "once again", which both comes across as somehow non-neutral, and assumes the audience knows background that should instead be explained. It makes sense to include in the lede that this has happened before, but it needs to be explained rather than alluded to — one can imagine either working it into the first sentence (if one can made it unobtrusive enough not to distract from the highest-priority function of the first sentence to describe the current instance), or putting it in a second sentence (probably what I'd do). It gives no indication of how they're thwarting efforts, which is one of the basic questions. This really should be updated with developments of Thursday, or its freshness becomes somewhat dubious. Updating like that doesn't have to be onerous. (I would have reviewed this much sooner if I could have; I've been tied up in several other lengthy reviews, which is unfortunate, but happens.) Yes, the title would change as part of the update. You should be able to do that yourself (I think in the vector skin it's in a dropdown menu on the right). I created the infobox. I haven't (sorry) done a more in-depth review, so yes, there could be other significant problems lurking; I'm hoping not, of course. :-) 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 1360172 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:46, 5 January 2012 (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 start of the article needs some work. The objective is a lede that succinctly answers as many as reasonably possible of the basic questions about the news event. As it now is, the first paragraph/sentence doesn't belong. The second paragraph, which is closer to what a lede should be, has a couple of problems. It needs to avoid its current use of "once again", which both comes across as somehow non-neutral, and assumes the audience knows background that should instead be explained. It makes sense to include in the lede that this has happened before, but it needs to be explained rather than alluded to — one can imagine either working it into the first sentence (if one can made it unobtrusive enough not to distract from the highest-priority function of the first sentence to describe the current instance), or putting it in a second sentence (probably what I'd do). It gives no indication of how they're thwarting efforts, which is one of the basic questions. This really should be updated with developments of Thursday, or its freshness becomes somewhat dubious. Updating like that doesn't have to be onerous. (I would have reviewed this much sooner if I could have; I've been tied up in several other lengthy reviews, which is unfortunate, but happens.) Yes, the title would change as part of the update. You should be able to do that yourself (I think in the vector skin it's in a dropdown menu on the right). I created the infobox. I haven't (sorry) done a more in-depth review, so yes, there could be other significant problems lurking; I'm hoping not, of course. :-) 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.

Difficulties encountered

• blog source

Under ordinary circumstances, a blog is not a trust-worthy source unless one can prove something about its author. I've been unable to prove anything about the author of the blog source in this case. Whether that disqualifies it depends on what it's used for, which I don't yet know. --Pi zero (talk) 14:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

removed --Pi zero (talk) 15:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Photos in the articles identified some unions present at the statehouse. The blog was used to clearly confirm the presence of the unions.Crtew (talk) 16:24, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

• start of session

The sources seem clear that the session has started. Presumably the quorum in question is not for starting for the session, but for conducting certain kinds of business. --Pi zero (talk) 14:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

fixed --Pi zero (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Background

The original background paragraphs about Wisconsin and Ohio were included to put the event in Indiana into perspective. At this point, it is historical, but here is a source that dealt with the Wisconsin and Ohio events last year today:

{Source|url=http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-01-06/indiana-republicans-pick-fight-with-unions-where-others-won-t.html |title=Indiana Republicans Pick Fight With Unions Where Others Won’t |author=Tim Jones |pub=Bloomberg Businessweek |date=January 6, 2012 }}

Crtew (talk) 16:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Changes such as adding back in the historical background can be submitted for review during the first 24 hours after publication, provided they don't add sources dated after the Wikinews article's date of publication. (24 hours after publication, the archiving policy kicks in; no further substantive changes allowed.) --Pi zero (talk) 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1361199 [Passed]

Revision 1361199 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1361199 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Official term

Is it actually called anti-bolting? The articel on it is located at w:quorum busting. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 00:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Quorum-busting would be what the Democrats are doing. Anti-bolting is the legislation passed by the Republicans to penalize quorum-busting; that legislation is supposed to prevent legislators from bolting (that is, prevent them from escaping). --Pi zero (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hidden Category

Category:Crtew (Wikinewsie)

Done --Pi zero (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2012 (UTC)