Talk:Women's March becomes largest protest in U.S. history

Prep strategy

My plan for this article is to find and toss in good content until after the march and then trim it down to show whatever pattern has emerged. I readily expect that a lot of this will be trimmed down or cut. This is about saving time for later. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Title

I'm thinking something like "At three million, women's march against Trump becomes largest protest in U.S. history." Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a neutrality issue here that one has to be careful not to step in, and your suggestion for a headline raises it: the mission statement of the action, as I see currently quoted in the article, does not ascribe to it the sentiment "against Trump". I would expect in this situation to have a mix of motivations, with some people indeed meaning to protest Trump's election, or protest Trump's statements on the subject, or some such, while others may view the march as an affirmation of values. Note, there's no such problem with saying the marches follow the inauguration, but assessing motives should be left to the reader. Statements of motive need to be carefully attributed, keeping in mind that anything big has a variety of them. --Pi zero (talk) 14:46, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

And that's why we post the proposal on the collaboration page.

"At three million, post-inauguration women's march becomes largest protest in U.S. history." Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Just realizing (in final sanity-check) the biggest-in-US-history thing is single-sourced. Recomputing... --Pi zero (talk) 20:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Ach, I like the current title though. Mind if I go seek out another source? BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:12, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Kaveh Waddel. "The Exhausting Work of Tallying America's Largest Protest" — The Atlantic, January 23, 2017 "As my colleague Conor wrote this morning, even the bottom line would make the Women’s March the largest protest in United States history." Complete with an additional link back to colleague Conor's article. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Added; thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 20:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Fresh eyes

I think I scrubbed out any bias but I've been up to my elbows in it and that's not the best view. Just reiterating that I am not offended if anyone comes in and changes "my" work. My usual technique is to sleep on it etc. but I don't think it wise to wait any longer. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Getting saturated is one of the basic reasons for independent review, even with experience reporters, yes. A familiar phenomenon. --Pi zero (talk) 20:04, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

My process is to wait 24hrs after anything I worked on is published, then re-read it with a carefully critical eye. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:07, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4282268 [Passed]

Revision 4282268 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: After some rough moments on final sanity-check, and an additional source recommended by BRS, and tweaks to both the headline and lede, I'm done futzing with the status of the largest-in-US-history claim. I hereby pronounce it Good Enough. The lede called for a bit more attribution; crowd sizes at these things are always controversial and it's important to point out that figures are estimates, also when one says something like "twice the expected figure" it begs the question of who did the expecting. The embedded html with hints on which sources to look in were helpful; thanks. (An awful lot of sources, here.) Some points were nonetheless especially tricky to deal with; the seven-continents thing, in particular, was a struggle, as I only found four of seven in the recommended source (found Asia and Africa in another, and finally got South America by consulting that monster spreadsheet, which I decided didn't quite require awkwardly moving it to the Sources section since there's a link to it embedded in a cited source). Opinions expressed by news sites, and to some extent by journalists, are not news we should be reporting; the term sometimes used at Wikinews for such is "navel-gazing" — news sites reporting on what news sites are reporting. Such things can become relevant, but don't let them creep in uninvited. I pulled one sentence entirely over that, and wasn't entirely at ease about — but didn't cut — the Mary Schmich quote; it would really have been much better form to explain Mary Schmich's credentials so as to establish clearly that this wasn't just "some journalist who writes for the Tribune". 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 4282268 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 20:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: After some rough moments on final sanity-check, and an additional source recommended by BRS, and tweaks to both the headline and lede, I'm done futzing with the status of the largest-in-US-history claim. I hereby pronounce it Good Enough. The lede called for a bit more attribution; crowd sizes at these things are always controversial and it's important to point out that figures are estimates, also when one says something like "twice the expected figure" it begs the question of who did the expecting. The embedded html with hints on which sources to look in were helpful; thanks. (An awful lot of sources, here.) Some points were nonetheless especially tricky to deal with; the seven-continents thing, in particular, was a struggle, as I only found four of seven in the recommended source (found Asia and Africa in another, and finally got South America by consulting that monster spreadsheet, which I decided didn't quite require awkwardly moving it to the Sources section since there's a link to it embedded in a cited source). Opinions expressed by news sites, and to some extent by journalists, are not news we should be reporting; the term sometimes used at Wikinews for such is "navel-gazing" — news sites reporting on what news sites are reporting. Such things can become relevant, but don't let them creep in uninvited. I pulled one sentence entirely over that, and wasn't entirely at ease about — but didn't cut — the Mary Schmich quote; it would really have been much better form to explain Mary Schmich's credentials so as to establish clearly that this wasn't just "some journalist who writes for the Tribune". 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.

Requested edit

{{editprotected}} Can you add the category "Women's history"? Thank you. Hmlarson (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Not done Wikinews does not have that category. We have Category:Women's rights which is already added. --SVTCobra 19:50, 15 January 2018 (UTC)