Talk:Texas student Ahmed Mohamed inspires social movement

Original reporting notes

Original reporting notes:

Original reporting includes use of Barack Obama tweet message, and use of image of his tweet. In addition to verification of other tweets referenced in sources double-checked a few times. -- Cirt (talk) 01:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

this (really ought to have linked in the notes here; fortunately, dead easy to find). --Pi zero (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

It's linked in the source notes for the image page at Wikimedia Commons. :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3837850 [Not ready]

Revision 3837850 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Some difficulties here, hopefully addressable; see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This is weak on specificity of its focus; 'inspires social movement' is rather nebulous, and this in the headline is I think in tune with the somewhat fuzzy focus in the article. One might wish to be somewhat lenient on that point by itself, but it's complemented by a failure to establish freshness. Difficulty establishing freshness tends to accompany weak focus, since a sharp focus is identified as such in the lede and freshness is established by answering "when", amongst the WN:five Ws and H. Here, though, the only specific event dated in the lede was on Tuesday of last week. That's a grey area in our freshness guidelines, which call for the focal event to have taken place 'in the last seven days' (see fence post error), but in any case, we want new developments within the past couple of days, and so to establish freshness in the lede there ought be some identification in the lede of something having happened within the past day or two. Of course, the event of Tuesday is in a sense not within the focus since the social movement has been inspired since then, but that gets back into the weak specificity of the focus. The only later event I noticed pinned down to a specific date in the article is from Thursday, which is five days ago and not nearly sufficient for freshness. Suggestions: Ideal, of course, would be some strong, recent specific development that's relevant in itself, and the rest could be hung on that framework as background. If no single strong, recent event is forthcoming, though, we might be able to make do with a bit of touch-up: establish recent development within the phenomenon, even though the recent development isn't in itself a newsworthy focus without some of the larger phenomenon. Is there something we can cite that's particularly recent, such as the latest reading of a stat somewhere? that should help to gently nudge the way we present the focus toward emphasizing that the phenomenon is continuing; perhaps other adjustments of phrasing can nudge in that direction too. 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 3837850 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Some difficulties here, hopefully addressable; see below. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This is weak on specificity of its focus; 'inspires social movement' is rather nebulous, and this in the headline is I think in tune with the somewhat fuzzy focus in the article. One might wish to be somewhat lenient on that point by itself, but it's complemented by a failure to establish freshness. Difficulty establishing freshness tends to accompany weak focus, since a sharp focus is identified as such in the lede and freshness is established by answering "when", amongst the WN:five Ws and H. Here, though, the only specific event dated in the lede was on Tuesday of last week. That's a grey area in our freshness guidelines, which call for the focal event to have taken place 'in the last seven days' (see fence post error), but in any case, we want new developments within the past couple of days, and so to establish freshness in the lede there ought be some identification in the lede of something having happened within the past day or two. Of course, the event of Tuesday is in a sense not within the focus since the social movement has been inspired since then, but that gets back into the weak specificity of the focus. The only later event I noticed pinned down to a specific date in the article is from Thursday, which is five days ago and not nearly sufficient for freshness. Suggestions: Ideal, of course, would be some strong, recent specific development that's relevant in itself, and the rest could be hung on that framework as background. If no single strong, recent event is forthcoming, though, we might be able to make do with a bit of touch-up: establish recent development within the phenomenon, even though the recent development isn't in itself a newsworthy focus without some of the larger phenomenon. Is there something we can cite that's particularly recent, such as the latest reading of a stat somewhere? that should help to gently nudge the way we present the focus toward emphasizing that the phenomenon is continuing; perhaps other adjustments of phrasing can nudge in that direction too. 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.

1. Copy edited, for focus, bringing key issues together by paragraph.
2. Copy edited, for focus, arranging material about social movement to one paragraph.
3. Copy edited, for focus, streamlining presentation of material and focus to upcoming events.
4. Added new source, ABC News, about visit this weekend to Google Science Fair as VIP guest and meeting with Sergey Brin.
5. Added new source, Toronto Star, itself citing Associated Press and USA Today, for info about meeting Sergey Brin and Google Science Fair -- as well as upcoming trip, tomorrow (Wednesday), to meet international dignitaries at the United Nations.

Thank you for your helpful comments, Pi zero (t · c · b), I think the article is better for them. I'd like to keep the title, now that the article body text focus is better. -- Cirt (talk) 17:18, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Review of revision 3838886 [Passed]

Revision 3838886 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Glad to see the measures for focus and freshness worked out. The lede ended up on the long side; seems symptomatic of the challenge of drawing together this focus and imho it works reasonably. 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 3838886 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Glad to see the measures for focus and freshness worked out. The lede ended up on the long side; seems symptomatic of the challenge of drawing together this focus and imho it works reasonably. 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.

Thanks very much, Pi zero (t · c · b)! And thank you for your most helpful copy edits! Most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)