Talk:Lord Ganapathi festival celebrations begin

Redlinks/Layout

• Red links should never exist in published articles.
• Three pictures makes a mess of this because they're all down one side and there isn't enough text to fill the space.

--Brian McNeil / ^talk

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Image:Ganapathi-Skovde.jpg
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Image:Ganapathi1.jpg
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Image:Ganapathi2.jpg
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Image:Ganapathi3.jpg
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Image:Ganapathi4.jpg

Empty section for OR notes?

@Pi zero: how do we know who did the original reporting, and were the notes emailed to scoop?
acagastya 09:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@Acagastya: This was solidly before the era of review. By the time I arrived at Wikinews, review was on its way in; the process here is something I never witnessed as it was happening. Looking at the edit history for this, it was mostly written by IPs, with experienced Wikinewsies occasionally inserting objections. Dragonfire1024 removed the publish tag and added one for not adequately citing sources (it didn't cite any). User account Gourinath was created and used to upload the images — which claim to be original work — and make some edits to the article. Brian McNeil replaced publish with develop. Dragonfire removed publish and added {{cleanup|no sources or OR notes on talk. Reads like an ad and or editorial. Borderline notnews}}. Dragonfire removed publish and added {{cleanup|No OR notes or sources, reads like an ad or an editorial.}}. Brianmc replaced publish with develop with an edit summary to see talk, and here on the talk page left a note with section heading in ALL CAPS saying do not publish without completing the OR section above; that talk comment would be removed nearly a year later by an IP (probably Gourinath) and Gourinath would add a list of the images, which probably means Gourinath had in mind for the images to be the grounds for claiming OR. Ironiridis added {{tasks|news|sp|change tone for news...}} (Markie removed "sp"). IP moved it to publish and Ironiridis immediately unpublished ("this is not ready to publish"). Another publish reverted by FellowWikiNews (accidentally also undoing some edits to the body that Ironiridis restored). Ironiridis reverted another publish ("unpublish, restore {{tasks}}, you have not fixed the problems with this article!"). Finally a mess of sources were added, and Dragonfire in their next edit did not remove publish (Dragonfire removed some excess images and was promptly reverted by Gourinath). Ironiridis removed publish ("this article remains in an unpublishable state."), and removed the OR tag ("not OR."). By this time it was two days after article creation. The day after that, an IP made a lot of edits that amounted to simply restoring the OR tag and publish, and no Wikinewsie did anything about it (perhaps they didn't notice, through some combination of people not being around and attention having moved elsewhere). Then nothing, until a couple of weeks later Jcart1534 archived the article.

We don't make claims about consistent quality of articles before the era of review. In this particular case, I think there's a case to be made for removing the OR tag. --Pi zero (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, if it was not an OR, we should probably remove the template.
acagastya 13:02, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that any of the sources verify the stuff about Scaninavia. It seems the sources were retrofitted, possibly not by the same user who wrote the text. Some of the sources are no longer available. However, I see no evidence there was actual OR here, and some signs there wasn't. Before review there were some articles that weren't well sourced, and lack of good sourcing does not make it OR. So, I removed the {{original}} tag. --Pi zero (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2017 (UTC)