Talk:New York Assembly passes same-sex marriage bill

locking the picture at its current version

Hello. I skimmed through a few pages a while back to familiarize myself with policy, and I recall reading somewhere a suggestion that if you're using an image that is likely to change frequently (such as the current same-sex marriage map), you should re-save it under a different file name such that you "lock" the image in its current version. Does that make sense, and do you think this would be a good idea for this particular article? Ragettho (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

It's a very good idea for this article. That picture is about as sure to change as can be. --Pi zero (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic. So would one have to "protect" the picture at its current version and save it somewhere else? I'm sorry if I'm asking really elementary questions; I can't seem to find that policy page that I'm referring to. Ragettho (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1246569 [Failed]

Revision 1246569 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: The Hikind verbatim quote is not in the sources, and I see nothing in the sources about Cuomo spending the past week outreaching to Republicans. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: We should be able to do better than the curt description that it appears to be one vote shy. No hint anyone thinks it might pass if brought to a vote, nor of a question whether it will be brought to a vote which seems to be a fairly significant part of the picture of this. One could likely do it with significantly fewer words than I've spend on this bullet. 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 1246569 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: The Hikind verbatim quote is not in the sources, and I see nothing in the sources about Cuomo spending the past week outreaching to Republicans. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: We should be able to do better than the curt description that it appears to be one vote shy. No hint anyone thinks it might pass if brought to a vote, nor of a question whether it will be brought to a vote which seems to be a fairly significant part of the picture of this. One could likely do it with significantly fewer words than I've spend on this bullet. 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.

• Also, I put the names of the states who have passed the law into the article. Otherwise, the map makes no sense. Once the reader can see that, except for Iowa, all the states that have passed it are states next to each other in the northeast, the political situation nationwide becomes a little more understandable. Afterall, there are 50 states, most of them much larger with a more varied populace. Also, there are states and local jurisdictions that allow civil unions but not marriage. Civil unions should be mentioned in the article if the map, which has a color for civil unions, is used, IMO.

I agree that these little, curt articles do not inform the reader, who has usually already heard or seen the headline news. Wikinews should be able to do better. Mattisse (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Really in-depth articles are great (and a bear to review). They aren't the only synthesis articles of value; a short article that sums things up well and neutrally can be helpful too, if it's about something that some of our audience weren't aware was going on. What really bothered me was that the article didn't seem to be summing things up adequately; it was missing some important pieces of the picture.

The article may have been intended to be something that could be gotten out the door quickly, which also has some merit. Unfortunately, the problems with it just accumulated; I'm not sure any one of the problems would have been enough on its own to justify a failing review, which made for a very uncomfortable review process. But they weren't on their own. --Pi zero (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1246970 [Passed]

Revision 1246970 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:44, 17 June 2011 (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 1246970 of this article has been reviewed by DragonFire1024 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:44, 17 June 2011 (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.