Talk:Ten-ton ice cube melting in Seattle park

Status

I've given this a preliminary look-over.

• I'm a bit concerned about the length; it's really a bit below our usual minimum (though I put some paragraph breaks in so that it does technically meet our three-paragraph guideline; for the usual minimum a few more sentences would be wanted). I want to take a closer look at the sources, to understand how much more there is that could be said. If this were a photo essay as such, the short text wouldn't be a problem, but of course three images doesn't really make a photo essay; on the other hand, these are original images, which tempts me to look the other way with merely a review comment along the lines of "please provide a bit more text next time".
• It has a passage or two I might want to tweak during review for distance-from-source.

Truthfully, it's late where I am and I don't trust my judgement for the length issue nor my sharpness for an in-depth source-check. So I'm turning in now and, unless someone else gets to this overnight, I'll take a look when I'm fresh in the morning. --Pi zero (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I was afraid the problems would be "too local" and "not newsworthy" so I tried to keep it short. I've added more words and more photos. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 05:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Ah. That would be WN:relevance. Our scope includes local stories, with a reasonable lower bound on them; in any case, as a matter of common sense, I found it an interesting (light, obviously) piece, so presumably plenty of other people would too. I could imagine some national light-news program having a spot about it. So, imho not a problem with relevance. --Pi zero (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your help; I reviewed all your edit summaries to guide me. It seems like it's mostly a categorization issue: if a story is categorized as a Seattle story, and an arts story, then nobody reading in a politics or Europe news category is going to be distracted by it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:00, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

• Seems to me the original pictures are sufficient to tag this as OR. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 04:06, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4247482 [Passed]

Revision 4247482 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Okay, granted relevance is a very subtle thing; but in this case, it was such a fascinating artifact (which I gather is how people react to it in the park, too) that it didn't even occur to me to question the relevance on first sight. 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 4247482 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 17:32, 10 September 2016 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Okay, granted relevance is a very subtle thing; but in this case, it was such a fascinating artifact (which I gather is how people react to it in the park, too) that it didn't even occur to me to question the relevance on first sight. 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.