User talk:Iuio/van Gogh article

All this stuff is valuable to learn from too!! --Bddpaux (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Review of revision 2671661 [Not ready]

Revision 2671661 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: 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: I'm uncomfortable with this. There isn't actually a recent specific event here; as noted at basic questions, if the lede doesn't contain a "day" word that's usually a trouble-sign. Everybody is covering this, suddenly, but nothing just happened, did it? The piece went on display on May 30, seven days ago. One could imagine doing some OR about it, but that's a whole nother kettle of fish. 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 2671661 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:23, 6 June 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: 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: I'm uncomfortable with this. There isn't actually a recent specific event here; as noted at basic questions, if the lede doesn't contain a "day" word that's usually a trouble-sign. Everybody is covering this, suddenly, but nothing just happened, did it? The piece went on display on May 30, seven days ago. One could imagine doing some OR about it, but that's a whole nother kettle of fish. 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 found a bit in the source from The Guardian where the artist told the Associated Press on Tuesday that she wanted to combine art in science, her motivation for making that piece, I suppose. Could this count as a "recent event"? (Iuio (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2014 (UTC))

Review of revision 2673713 [Not ready]

Revision 2673713 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: 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: I've been thinking deeply on this. Here's my reading of the situation; I may ask at the water cooler for other reviewers' perspectives on this sort of situation, once I work out how to phrase the question. My guess is, an AP reporter did a bit of research, got a few quotes, and put together an article. Other news orgs put together pieces on the subject, most of them probably paying for the right to use the AP piece in whole or in part. If a Wikinewsie had done [appoximately] what I'm supposing that AP reporter did — a bit of research, reaching out to a few people and getting some quotes — and put together a Wikinews article, it would probably have been a solid OR piece (subject to getting the presentation right). This would work because, for purposes of newsworthiness, the act of us publishing the original material is, more or less, its own event, and therefore fresh kind-of by definition. (It's possible for even the best OR to go stale if it sits around long enough, but in this case we're talking about a matter of just a few days.) However, the fact that somebody else did the original work isn't necessarily an "event" for purposes of our newsworthiness judgement. Sometimes, if somebody else does some original work resulting in something that's a big deal, it is newsworthy for us; tbh, this doesn't seem big enough for that, though. So the focal event, for us, would be the opening on the 30th. Which, unfortunately, is more than a week ago. 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 2673713 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 23:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: 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: I've been thinking deeply on this. Here's my reading of the situation; I may ask at the water cooler for other reviewers' perspectives on this sort of situation, once I work out how to phrase the question. My guess is, an AP reporter did a bit of research, got a few quotes, and put together an article. Other news orgs put together pieces on the subject, most of them probably paying for the right to use the AP piece in whole or in part. If a Wikinewsie had done [appoximately] what I'm supposing that AP reporter did — a bit of research, reaching out to a few people and getting some quotes — and put together a Wikinews article, it would probably have been a solid OR piece (subject to getting the presentation right). This would work because, for purposes of newsworthiness, the act of us publishing the original material is, more or less, its own event, and therefore fresh kind-of by definition. (It's possible for even the best OR to go stale if it sits around long enough, but in this case we're talking about a matter of just a few days.) However, the fact that somebody else did the original work isn't necessarily an "event" for purposes of our newsworthiness judgement. Sometimes, if somebody else does some original work resulting in something that's a big deal, it is newsworthy for us; tbh, this doesn't seem big enough for that, though. So the focal event, for us, would be the opening on the 30th. Which, unfortunately, is more than a week ago. 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.