Talk:U.S. House issues subpoena to secretary of state as special envoy to Ukraine resigns

Already written

This focal event has already been covered by a published article on this site. --Pi zero (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh well. Maybe this one can be reworked for whatever happens tomorrow. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:43, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Impeachment investigation

Looking at the headline and lede, this presents the "impeachment investigation" as a fundamental change of mode, as if Congress wasn't investigating until Pelosi caused them to do so. But that's a misleading picture. --Pi zero (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I tried to clarify the lede --DannyS712 (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The headline says it's the "first" subpoena in the impeachment investigation. That seems problematic, dragging in the whole question of whether there has only been an impeachment investigation since Pelosi announced one, or isn't one yet because she doesn't have the authority, or has been one for some time because no official declaration is required. Far the simplest solution is to revise the headline to avoid claiming it's the first in the impeachment investigation. --Pi zero (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Tried replacing "issues first subpoena in Trump impeachment investigation" with "issues subpoena to secretary of state". --Pi zero (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Written

@Darkfrog24: I've written a draft of the article, but didn't want to submit it for review myself, since you're the author; can you take a look? --DannyS712 (talk) 02:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I have no problem whatsoever with you or anyone hitting review yourself.

The problem that jumped out at me right away was the use of the New York Times. It's only partially paywalled, but more than one reviewer has said that they will not use up their limited number of free views to use NYT. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I read your contribs and the only problem I see is the NYT thing. Tired. Sleep now... Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Submitted. If any reviewer needs access to the NYT articles, I can send them a copy --DannyS712 (talk) 03:57, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Some perspective on NYT sources. (In case I haven't mentioned this to you before.)

The NYT paywall is very flimsy, apparently designed against computer-illiterate users. It's not just easy to bypass; the way I have my system configured, I have to go out of my way to not bypass it. However, NYT clearly wants people to have to pay. That's their economic model. Surviving as a commercial news outlet is not easy, and we deeply respect our commercial journalistic colleagues (even when we criticize them mercilessly, which is part of the journalistic ethic), so if that's the economic model they choose, we ought to try to respect it.

We, on the other hand, mean to be an open wiki, and as part of that, people should be able to look at our sources (barring embargoed or otherwise private documentation for OR) without having to pay for it. Our policy says: no pay-to-read sources. So if it costs money to view NYT articles, we should not be using them.

We tend in practice to be somewhat tolerant on this point, or at least I often am, under the time pressures of our review process: rather than rejecting articles because they use NYT, we usually just make a point of explicitly exhorting the reporter to try to avoid NYT in future. --Pi zero (talk) 05:08, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Pi zero: thanks for letting me know. I'll do my best in the future --DannyS712 (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

If NYT were on our list, I would use it and use it and use it... Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4517514 [Passed]

Revision 4517514 of this article has been reviewed by Mikemoral (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: During review I removed some redundant passages, and generalized the number of Representatives in favor of impeachment. NBC News says both both 223 and 225, so I put it "over 220" 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 4517514 of this article has been reviewed by Mikemoral (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:36, 30 September 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: During review I removed some redundant passages, and generalized the number of Representatives in favor of impeachment. NBC News says both both 223 and 225, so I put it "over 220" 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.

Investigation docs

@DannyS712: I would recommend we keep the links to Commons rather than linking to the US government sites. These sort of things tend to disappear over time, but if we keep the link to the Commons uploads, we have more certainty the links will remain after a while. We could link to Commons in the {{source}} template still. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 23:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Even linking to Wikisource is possible. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 23:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

If the files disappear, we can link to commons as an archive? I just think that for now linking to the original source would be better --DannyS712 (talk) 23:57, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I mean, I don't see why we don't just link to our own sister site where the documents are stored. Unless you mean to include a link to the Commons upload along with the external link. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 00:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see your response; your addition of both looks good to me --DannyS712 (talk) 01:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

FAC

Rereading the article, and looking at the criteria for Wikinews:Featured articles, I think this article may be a candidate. However, since I haven't been involved in nominating candidates before, I'd like to see what others who worked on this article think.

Pings: @Darkfrog24, SVTCobra, Pi zero, Mikemoral: what do you think of nominating this article to be a featured article?

Given the refocus at the beginning, we give a lot of background info, ensuring that we "[c]over the news event comprehensively"; the article has 2 pictures (as well as one in the infobox); and I believe in counts as 'well written'. Thoughts? --DannyS712 (talk) 01:39, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Not denigrating this article at all, it doesn't feel to me like it's up to the weight class of FAs. I think we want a synthesis FA to be something quite special. My two cents. --Pi zero (talk) 01:48, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Judge jails 'monstrous' London serial killer Stephen Port is an excellent example of synthesis FA, very detailed in its scope. Most FAs are original reporting for the most part. Though, this article does cover the event well. —mikemoral (talk · contribs) 07:11, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request - category

{{editprotected}}

Please add Category:Impeachment of Donald Trump. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. --Pi zero (talk) 21:48, 12 January 2020 (UTC)