Talk:Oakland, California record release party catches fire

Review

I've had our other active reviewer, PiZ, working extremely hard lately. I hope to be able to deal with this review myself but can almost guarantee I won't be able to do so tonight. Of course, should any other reviewers pop up I wouldn't for a second discourage them; I too have other commitments. All the same, I should be able to take care of this. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 22:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4267381 [Not ready]

Revision 4267381 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: I have no way to verify the copyright status of the images. One refers to OTRS on the description page, but neither actually have been checked via OTRS. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: That map. I have no confidence it won't be randomly changed in appearence, contrary to WN:ARCHIVE, and it's not got any intuitive code; as a non-coder, I cannot do anything with it and it's making an awful mess of the format. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4267381 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: I have no way to verify the copyright status of the images. One refers to OTRS on the description page, but neither actually have been checked via OTRS. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: That map. I have no confidence it won't be randomly changed in appearence, contrary to WN:ARCHIVE, and it's not got any intuitive code; as a non-coder, I cannot do anything with it and it's making an awful mess of the format. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

@Blood Red Sandman: I removed the map. What do you mean about the images? Not everything on Commons needs an OTRS ticket. I am a trusted user and these images are legit free media. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:57, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikinews is not Commons. Images are content. I cannot verify the copyright status of them; therefore, I cannot pass the article. It is most irregular to have original content and not leave detailed notes about it. Normally, where the original content is images, I'd happily make an exception; but here you did not take them. I don't know who did, or how you got them, or what their status is. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:37, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@Blood Red Sandman: Emailed and map removed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

• After exchanging some emails, I'm now content with the image status. This needs a little update to fill in the updated death toll released today and then hopefully be published today. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:54, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4267455 [Passed]

Revision 4267455 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I realise I've been dumping rather a lot on these maps lately. I actually think they're great, very valuable to multiple projects (particularly Wikivoyage, Wikipedia, and Commons). But maps are images, images are content, and content is subject to archive conventions. I have little faith in them to remain stable, and am not convinced they even should remain stable. We're better with old-fashioned images, I suspect. 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 4267455 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:05, 4 December 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I realise I've been dumping rather a lot on these maps lately. I actually think they're great, very valuable to multiple projects (particularly Wikivoyage, Wikipedia, and Commons). But maps are images, images are content, and content is subject to archive conventions. I have little faith in them to remain stable, and am not convinced they even should remain stable. We're better with old-fashioned images, I suspect. 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.