Talk:NASA's TESS spacecraft reports its first exoplanet

Freshness

So we have a new twist in our science and freshness conundrum: The article isn't yet published and the findings hit mainstream news before publication. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, sort of. It was published on the arXiv, and there's a problem with when it actually went live there, which a source implies really took place on Monday although the upload was on Sunday (and, just to make things really fun, the version now on the archive is dated Tuesday). Anyway, there's nothing sacred about publication; we're looking for a specific event we can pin down. I'd have to agree it's a different twist, though; I don't recall we've used an arXiv focal event before. --Pi zero (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Yet another case to file into our collective memory. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. I have always had in mind that if Wikinews is to truly grow — far beyond the size that it started out at; imagine thousands of reporters writing scores of articles per day — it will need to be able to capture such collective memory in a way that doesn't require lore-masters. (Just because I'm serving as a lore-master now doesn't mean I consider that a viable long-term approach.) --Pi zero (talk) 23:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

This is one of the first, if not the first, time you've referred to yourself as such in my presence. I will add that to my memory. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4433642 [Passed]

Revision 4433642 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Fact checking is fact checking; I'd encourage the reporter to take a look at the stylistic edits during review, though, which seem to be preventable reviewer burden. If something isn't clear, or if you have doubts on specific points, ask. 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 4433642 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:11, 20 September 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Fact checking is fact checking; I'd encourage the reporter to take a look at the stylistic edits during review, though, which seem to be preventable reviewer burden. If something isn't clear, or if you have doubts on specific points, ask. 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.

• Wondering about possible additional info about who. --Pi zero (talk) 22:20, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I went through your edits and I'm a bit confused about the one with the brackets. I copied the quote exactly from the source "Pi Mensae" and all, so I'm not sure what significant editorial change took place. I did change a pi symbol to "Pi" the word but not within the quote. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:37, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Darkfrog24: Ah? As I recall, I checked that quote against the arXiv, where it said "π Men" rather than "Pi Mensae". If changing the one to the other, I would consider that a big enough change to warrant brackets; but perhaps one of the other sources quotes it and makes the change without marking it, which could account for the discrepancy between what you did and what I did. --Pi zero (talk) 23:54, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

I got it from Gizmodo, so there we are. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:46, 21 September 2018 (UTC)