Talk:US Interior Department approves Willow oil project in Alaska

New article, new wikinews editor

All constructive criticisms welcome. Any mistakes should not be misinterpreted as intentional or trying to skirt the rules.

What changes should I make before going to review?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks pretty good at a glance, though we don't usually have sections and it would be good to include "US" before President Biden and perhaps make it more specific (headlines can never be reused on MediaWiki). Heavy Water (talk) 21:27, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, just seeing your suggestion after hitting the review request button. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 21:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Not a problem. Review is part of the revising process when you can get advice on what to revise, after all. Heavy Water (talk) 21:38, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

To change the headline, do I need to create an entirely new article? Michael.C.Wright (talk) 21:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

No, just hover over "More" and click "Rename", like on Wikipedia. Heavy Water (talk) 21:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

On reading it, I find the article's focus is not an event, like "US President Biden approves/rejects Alaska oil project", for example. Thus, there isn't really a "when" or "what" to this story; it's more like a profile, so to speak, of the proposal. Heavy Water (talk) 21:46, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I see what you are saying; that because no event has taken place (no approval/rejection by the administration), there is nothing to report on Wikinews. Is that correct?

My thought was to have this article published this week, so that once it's voted on, I would write an article about that and readers of this article would already know about it and would have anticipated another article.

Should I remove the review template for now?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Basically, yeah. What you can do is move this to story preparation, so you can have all this stuff saved for when the event happens, and then move it to mainspace when that does happen. Typically we work this kind of thing into an article as background. Heavy Water (talk) 22:04, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I did the template shuffle to 'prepared' from 'review.' Should I also rename the page again, to make it a subpage of Wikinews:Story preparation?

Thanks again for your patience! Michael.C.Wright (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, you should. Thanks for writing it! Heavy Water (talk) 22:26, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Done. Once the event occurs, I'll change the title to something like "US President Biden approves/rejects Willow oil project." I just thought of that after I renamed it a second time. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ It's a learning process.

Last question—at least until I have another; is it kosher to continue to add background to the article while it's in "story preparation" or should that all be done while in "developing?" Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Both of those things are perfectly fine. Heavy Water (talk) 00:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Update on when administration will comment

According to a CNN article[1], the administration is set to make an announcement the week of March 12th. I have adjusted (diff) the "expected event" date to the end of March, to give some leeway. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 18:54, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

In preparation for review process

@Heavy Water, @JJLiu112, or anyone else...

Do you have any suggestions for ways to help reviewers with the reviewing process? I have tried to place inline citations using HTML comments, as suggested by Heavy Water. Maybe that will also tell you if I'm over-sourcing statements.

Also, I am not really sold on the bulleted list at the end of the article. I wanted to include a summary of what the MDP authorizes, to help readers understand the magnitude and the expected impacts of the project. What are your thoughts on the bulleted list?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 23:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

A bulleted list does seem rather encyclopedic; perhaps prose form would be better. Heavy Water (talk) 00:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Using US Government Works (images in this case) in an article

I would like to use this image in the aricle: https://eplanning.blm.gov/projects/109410/200258043/20075032/250081214/Lease%20Map.pdf

It was released today in the press release announcing approval of the project: https://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-substantially-reduces-scope-willow-project

"Most U.S. government creative works such as writing or images are copyright-free."[2]

• The image contains no logos
• The image contains no copywrite indication
• Wikinews has not claimed or implied endorsement by a government agency, official, or employee

I am already preparing an email to request permission, but was wondering how Wikicommons has obtained official portraits of politicians. Are those photos considered Fair use or public domain and would this image fall under the same?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 15:01, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I found this image[3] that I've used as a place holder for now (and it can remain permanent if needed).

That image has the following licensing statement:

This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties under the terms of Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code. Note: This only applies to original works of the Federal Government and not to the work of any individual U.S. state, territory, commonwealth, county, municipality, or any other subdivision. This template also does not apply to postage stamp designs published by the United States Postal Service since 1978. (See § 313.6(C)(1) of Compendium of U.S. Copyright Office Practices). It also does not apply to certain US coins; see The US Mint Terms of Use.

The metadata of the file contains this:

downloaded from http://www.blm.gov/pgdata/etc/medialib/blm/ak/aktest/planning/ne_npr-a_supplemental0.Par.99855.File.dat/Map1-3_SpecialAreas.pdf on April 13, 2013, converted from pdf to jpg and trimmed.Show extended details

I may see if I can do the same later today. If anyone knows what the right course of action is here, please share.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 15:41, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

If employees of the Bureau for Land Management (or any other federal agency) produced the map, it is public domain and can be uploaded to Commons. If it was produced by a sub-contractor, they may have copyright on it. Offhand, it does look like a federal work. I would upload it to Commons. Whether or not you convert it from a PDF to an image format, be sure to provide the link to where you found the original and tag it with {{PD-USGov-BLM}} for the license information. Commons already has lots of works by BLM in Commons:Category:Bureau of Land Management. Cheers, SVTCobra 16:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons only accepts free-use files, not fair use. The official portraits are usually the work of government employees, and, by law, works created by US government employees as part of their official duties are automatically public domain. But it could be a ConocoPhilips map and so not PD. Best to ask, but remember not to present yourself as a representative of Wikinews. Heavy Water (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

I uploaded two maps, both released today by the BLM in relation to the MDP[4]:

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Willow_Development_Lease_Map.jpg

• https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Beaufort_Sea_Withdrawal_NPR-A_Special_Areas.jpg.

Does everything look okay with those images, licensing, categories, etc? Are there any recommended changes before use?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 18:46, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry for the extra move

When I renamed the title, the default choice for the location was wikinews and I left that. I then received an error upon trying to submit for review. The error stated the article wasn't in mainspace. The last move was to fix that.

What is the wikinews space for?

Hopefully it all ended up where it needs to be!

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 17:44, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a common typo, done it a few times myself (the submit dialog prevents you from submitting anything outside mainspace for review). The Wikinews mainspace is for policy, essays, etc.—cf. Wikinews:Attribution. Heavy Water (talk) 17:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

ahhhh, right. Also as in WN:STYLE, etc. Got it. Michael.C.Wright (talk) Michael.C.Wright (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Categories ... do you know how to add them? Reduces the burden on Reviewers. Cheers, SVTCobra 20:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

There are several, actually. Michael did the right thing by putting colons in front of them so the page won't populate in those cats, as Wikinews:Story preparation advises. Heavy Water (talk) 20:26, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, OK. Those colons should be removed now that it is back in mainspace. SVTCobra 20:53, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

How can I help

Is there anything else I can do to make the reviewer's job easier, besides removing the colons from the categories? Michael.C.Wright (talk) 00:29, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

WN:PYRAMID does advise: "A short paragraph should ideally be only one or two sentences, or three if they're very short sentences." Fixing that would be a help, but I don't see anything else major. Heavy Water (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I reduced it by 3.5%. I think I'm too close to it to reduce it any more significantly. I want to keep all the bits! ツ Michael.C.Wright (talk) 04:36, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Related to SVTCobra's statement on another article; "The only thing that needs two sources is the focal event." WN:Style states this: "there should be a distinction at least between links to factual support (other modern Wikinews articles and external sources) and links to background pages and websites."

Is there any established or recommended way to separate factual from background references? It would be good for readers to have quick access to all of the sources that were used to generate the article, while allowing the reviewers to quickly/easily review the factual content.

Maybe a section titled "Background Information"? I assume something like would should be placed above the Sources section, as sister links and related news sections are.

I'm asking here because I think I can trim the number of sources in this article and SVT is busy today. But if I can trim them in a way that keeps them for the reader but reduces the load on the reviewer, I'd prefer that route.

As always, thank for the help!

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that paragraph is referring to external links, i.e., ones not used to source information in the article, but just provided for readers' reference (sort of like "Further reading" on Wikipedia). It says they should be in an "External links" section below the sources. So if there are unnecessary sources you could do that. Heavy Water (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

To clarify, the really substantial parts of the article should be doubly sourced. It depends on what one means by focal event, I guess. A quote or background information can be singly sourced. I am not so familiar with this article, but on the one I made the comment, if one wants to include tech specs on a Reaper or an Su-27 only one reliable source is needed. With a quote, it is entirely possible that only one source has a statement from an official, for example, after they reached out for comment. Generally, it is best to attribute information that is from only a single source. I hope I didn't sow confusion. Cheers, SVTCobra 19:00, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4716892 [Not ready]

Revision 4716892 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Contravening WN:5W&H, the lead does not state the "when" of the focal event, nor as far as I can see, does any other paragraph in the article. Comments by reviewer: I hate to risk this going stale when so much work was put into it over this, but it needs fixing. I also struggled with the headline. Biden did not personally authorize it, at least officially, the Interior Department did. The sources (most, anyway) were careful to say "the Biden administration". I also weighed the broader "US government" but passed on it; I think it's pretty obvious to an international audience this is a government office. I mentioned the state-the project is not widely known, so its name alone doesn't seem informative. Lastly, I removed "controversial"; in my experience, we don't like saying things are controversial, we outline the opposition and let it speak for itself. Plus, I think it's internationally known that any new oil project will face opposition from environmentalists. 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 4716892 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:24, 20 March 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Contravening WN:5W&H, the lead does not state the "when" of the focal event, nor as far as I can see, does any other paragraph in the article. Comments by reviewer: I hate to risk this going stale when so much work was put into it over this, but it needs fixing. I also struggled with the headline. Biden did not personally authorize it, at least officially, the Interior Department did. The sources (most, anyway) were careful to say "the Biden administration". I also weighed the broader "US government" but passed on it; I think it's pretty obvious to an international audience this is a government office. I mentioned the state-the project is not widely known, so its name alone doesn't seem informative. Lastly, I removed "controversial"; in my experience, we don't like saying things are controversial, we outline the opposition and let it speak for itself. Plus, I think it's internationally known that any new oil project will face opposition from environmentalists. 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.

My last two edits address the "when" and also remove the statement labeling it controversial. The second paragraph did say the RoD was released last Monday, which answered the "when" question, but maybe not clear enough.

I do wonder if it's important to explicitly say the Biden administration approved the project because the DoI is part of the Executive office. It also helps to clarify that ultimately, he had to approve it. Explicitly saying the 'Biden administration' goes to the debate that he broke a campaign promise. That's something I hope I clarified by demonstrating (in paragraph 4) that it isn't easy to keep a campaign promise in a system with checks, balances, and competing agendas. But at this point, maybe it's more important to get it published as-is rather than delay it further as we debate the finer details of the headline. I'm open to suggestions either way on this one.

Are there any other items I should address or should I resubmit for review?

Thanks, Michael.C.Wright (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I was not sure if the RoD release and the approval were simultaneous; anyway, it must be stated in the lead as it is now. "Biden administration" in the headline is also fine, you can move it if you think it's better to have that in the headline and "Department of Interior" in the lead. Please do resubmit it. --Heavy Water (talk) 19:58, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

"I was not sure if the RoD release and the approval were simultaneous" In this case the Record of Decision is the approval. I could have noted that in the article. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4716953 [Not ready]

Revision 4716953 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Sorry, another thing: Wikinews:Pillars of writing requires "at least two mutually independent, trust-worthy sources verifying the focal news event". Sometimes the "independent" phrasing has been interpreted to mean "a primary source is insufficient as one of the two sources for a synthesis article", which would exclude the BLM source from being one, but usually it isn't. The only sources dated after the focal event are: BLM (the approval itself), DOI (noting the BLM's decision, but it's a parent agency, so it's hardly mutually independent from BLM), and Murkowski's tweet commenting on the event. There are certainly more available sources. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: @Michael.C.Wright. 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 4716953 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: Sorry, another thing: Wikinews:Pillars of writing requires "at least two mutually independent, trust-worthy sources verifying the focal news event". Sometimes the "independent" phrasing has been interpreted to mean "a primary source is insufficient as one of the two sources for a synthesis article", which would exclude the BLM source from being one, but usually it isn't. The only sources dated after the focal event are: BLM (the approval itself), DOI (noting the BLM's decision, but it's a parent agency, so it's hardly mutually independent from BLM), and Murkowski's tweet commenting on the event. There are certainly more available sources. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: @Michael.C.Wright. 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.

I added two sources that explicitly mention the project was approved. Thanks again, Michael.C.Wright (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Source for pause in offshore leases quote

The source for the quote regarding offshore leases (removed in this diff) is the executive order itself[5]:

To the extent consistent with applicable law,the Secretary of the Interior shall pause new oil and natural gas leases on public lands or in offshore waters pending completion of a comprehensive review and reconsideration of Federal oil and gas permitting and leasing practices in light of the Secretary of the Interior’s broad stewardship responsibilities over the public lands and in offshore waters, including potential climate and other impacts associated with oil and gas activities on public lands or in offshore waters.

I cited the wrong source for the quote. It looks like I found the executive order through the Daly, Knickmeyer article, quoted the executive order, then incorrectly cited the Daly article as the source for the quote. I can fix that. I think it's important to the article because Biden was trying to fulfill the campaign promise of "no more drilling, including offshore."

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Let's not publish just yet

Important information is now getting removed and I need to better understand policies regarding articles.

Thanks, Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding this diff; it was my understanding that synthesis is allowed, per WN:CONTENT, which states:

The most common is the synthesis article. These draw on media reports from several independent sources which must be cited. Multiple reliable sources are required for verifiability and neutrality.

In the article, I first established two facts with citations: 1. that the executive order to pause new leases was struck down by the courts and 2. the IRA mandates lease quotas. The synthesis that the combination of the two will prevent the President from stopping new leases for both federal land and offshore seems obvious. The two facts already established that his executive order lacked authority and his new law requires new leases every year. Because the synthesis is obvious, I assumed it is excluded from the citation requirement.

I also think that point is critical to the article, because many are blaming the President for breaking his campaign promise when he tried but will not be able to, ever because of the IRA mandate.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:54, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: It is obvious? If it is obvious, the readers can draw that conclusion themselves. That is WN:Neutrality: present the facts, and if these conclusions are obvious, the readers will draw them. Regarding the above, I've removed the {{under review}} tag so you can add that source and re-add the quote. But staleness is 5-7 days, which technically makes this stale, but I kind of can push it back considering the length and depth of this article. Heavy Water (talk) 16:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Done I've only reinserted the quote regarding the executive order, removed the Daly citation and added a citation pointing to the executive order. I'm okay with the article being published as is if that is what the reviewer decides. What follows is for continued discussion:

Regarding synthesis; is it not permitted? I interpret the fact that policy calls them "synthesis articles" and allows original research means that, within other all other policies such as neutrality, citations, etc., synthesis via original research is allowed.

"Is it obvious?" I do think it is obvious that the combination of 1) a judge ruling that the Executive has no authority to pause leases, and 2) law (signed by the Executive) requiring new leases every year means Biden is not going to be able to end new drilling. And I think it needs to be explicitly stated because of other, misleading characterizations. This is supported by the Brookings article cited, as well as a Forbes article (mentioned below, but not cited).

I also understand the neutrality policy, which quotes Uncle Jimbo as saying in part: "We can only seek a type of writing that is agreeable to essentially rational people who may differ on particular points." I did not assert any judgement to the fact being good or bad. You and I may differ on the implications of Biden's inability to fulfill his campaign promise, but we can both agree he won't be able to end new leases.

For comparison, this is a quote from a Forbes article: "[T]he Biden administration seems to have become a cheerleader for the fossil fuel industry through actions like new drilling permits and support for new natural gas export infrastructure."[6] That is both misleading and biased reporting. Biden is legally required to approve a specified amount of new leases every year, whether he likes it or not.

I want to qualify that my intention is not to wikilawyer this or to be argumentative. I am trying to understand what is the consensus around synthesis, original research/reporting, and neutrality.

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Synthesis is permitted as long as it is sourced and neutral, as you are saying. I think it is obvious too, personally. BTW, that's a Forbes contributor article of the type covered by WP:FORBESCON, not a Forbes staff article, so I wouldn't treat it as anything more serious than a blogger. OK, so the authors are biased. But Wikinews synthesis is of the type that states, "Judge X ruled Y. Law X says Z", then allows the reader to draw the conclusion that Biden is unable to fulfill his campaign promise. If this is an obvious thing, the reader should be able to conclude it.

There are...differences between neutrality at Wikipedia and Wikinews.

At Wikipedia, neutrality sums up what the RSes say, and what the established consensus of experts is, with proportional representation to minority viewpoints. This is what "truth, not verifiability" is. If Wikipedia was around in Copernicus' time, it would (assuming it wasn't being censored by religious authorities to not mention heliocentrism) have proclaimed the geocentric theory to be "the scientific consensus" and the heliocentric theory to be a fringe or minority viewpoint. That is not a flaw, it is simply the condition of an encyclopedia, reflecting the mainstream, accepted views as a tertiary, not secondary, source.

Wikinews is a secondary source, so neutrality has to be more rigid (like the requirement of WN:Attribution for generalizations and such, or not calling people terrorists).

What I'm trying to say here is probably best summed up by this part of WN:Neutrality: "Comparative segues. It's easy to fall into gluing together segments of text with constructs such as "[First statement]. However, [second statement]", "[First statement]. Moreover, [second statement]", "Despite [first statement], [second statement]". Generally avoid such constructs; we should not be telling the reader what relationship they should perceive between these segments. Following Strunk's directive to omit needless words, one might simply say "[First statement]. [Second statement]."

I don't think you're wikilawyering, and I appreciate how you actually read the policies and guidelines. But I have only gotten word of this from reading old discussions and WN:Neutrality, an essay by the late, great User:Pi zero, which do a far better job of outlining what a neutral news source looks like. That man was a genius. Heavy Water (talk) 04:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I'll have to re-read it a couple of time to soak it all in properly. I'll dig in to the Neutrality essay shortly. Also, the comparison/juxtaposition to Wikipedia helps to better understand both a little better. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 14:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Source for quote of Murkowski

The source for the quote by Murkowski was removed as part of this edit.

The source is the February 14, 2023 AP article by Bohrer.[7].

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 21:25, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I said in my edit summary. The article's not tagged, so you can add it back if you want. Heavy Water (talk) 21:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4717090 [Passed]

Revision 4717090 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Yes, yes, I know it's a day over the staleness window. But this is and always has been done occasionally to publish an exceptionally good article that would have gone stale in the queue without a review. @Michael.C.Wright: Thanks for the invisible sourcing comments and for sticking around; some points about conciseness, style, and WN:PYRAMID will be visible from the edit history. And, while I recognize this was your first article (though not first published) please do remember to remove unnecessary sources. 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 4717090 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:58, 21 March 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Yes, yes, I know it's a day over the staleness window. But this is and always has been done occasionally to publish an exceptionally good article that would have gone stale in the queue without a review. @Michael.C.Wright: Thanks for the invisible sourcing comments and for sticking around; some points about conciseness, style, and WN:PYRAMID will be visible from the edit history. And, while I recognize this was your first article (though not first published) please do remember to remove unnecessary sources. 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.

Article never introduces 'Biden'

The article never introduces Biden as U.S. President. The only mention of Biden in the article is this: "In January 2021, Biden signed an executive order..."

Is it okay for me to change that now?

Michael.C.Wright (talk) 17:18, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Done Sorry about that. Heavy Water (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: Changed to article are generally okay for 24 hours post publication (Wikinews:Archive conventions for the specific policy.)

—chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 17:28, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you both. I just wanted to make sure — to err on the side of caution before editing. I started to do it myself but thought it better to ask. Michael.C.Wright (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Archiving

@Heavy Water:. Is there a way to invoke InternetArchiveBot? There are so many sources here. SVTCobra 17:12, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea. @Harej might know, they co-maintain it. Heavy Water (talk) 17:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

SVTCobra, you can activate the bot on specific pages through this page. Harej (talk) 17:25, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I navigated myself to that earlier. When I run the analyze tool, it makes no modifications to the page. It just returns this output:

• Page title: US Interior Department approves Willow oil project in Alaska
• Run duration: 5.5789570808411 Seconds
• Page modified: No
• Links analyzed: 14
• Links rescued: 0
• Links tagged: 0
• Links archived: 0

Is it because our {{source}} is so different from Wikipedia reference style? SVTCobra 17:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Harej: It is the same whether or not I check the "Add archives" box. Cheers, SVTCobra 17:52, 7 April 2023 (UTC)