Wikinews:Featured article candidates

(Redirected from Wikinews:FAC)

This is where the Wikinews community selects new featured articles.

Featured articles should, at a minimum:

  • Have pictures (they should make a good visual impression)
  • Be well-written
  • Cover the news event comprehensively

In addition, we should try to choose articles with these features:

Add suggestions for new articles below. If you are the author, or an author, please include a note that it is your own work. Please justify why you think an article should be featured.

  • Nominations are discussed for a minimum of seven days. Please discuss each nomination and try to come to a consensus before listing an article on Wikinews:Featured articles. Please add {{FAC}} to listed articles' talk pages, and add {{FA}} to successful candidates. See the archive directory for past nominations.
  • There is no upper limit to how long a nomination can be open. Newly-featured articles are often featured on social media, so it is advisable not to close more than two or three in quick succession. Likewise, multiple articles in a single nomination are discouraged.

Candidates edit

Consider voting on previous nominations when you add an article to this list!

[OPEN] Sydney, Australia woman who "spontaneously" murdered boyfriend in "fatal explosion of emotion" sentenced edit

Nominating some synthesis I reviewed; recalling the apparently record-breaking year-plus the last FA nomination took despite unanimous support, I've put this up just days after it was archived. Illustrated with clear, relevant images, and thorough in its examination of the two-year-long case with conciseness. Heavy Water (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments edit

well done!!! 64.39.81.54 (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes edit

  •   Support: As nom. Heavy Water (talk) 21:27, 10 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose A good read, but I have a few concerns here. While the Style Guide recommends one or two sentences per paragraph, at this length, in my opinion, merging these one-sentence paragraphs into longer ones would have been better. The meaning of "SC" (probably Senior Counsel) is not explained. About Wentworth Point, it would have been good to mention that it is a suburb of Sydney (readers from abroad are not likely to know this). Darlinghurst Courthouse and Concord Repatriation General Hospital could have been linked. Only towards the end it gets revealed, that justice had been delivered in at least two steps: a sentencing by a judge, and a trial heard by a jury (again, readers from abroad might face different systems of arbitration). The Supreme Court is mentioned towards the end, which, to me, suggests that this was a second(?) or third(?) trial after appeal; or was the Supreme Court the first level to hear this case? This should have been clarified early on (in the lede), primarily so that the reader could deduce whether the sentence is final or appealable, and to answer where. It is not a currently whitelisted usecase, but we could have considered adding Musa's picture to the article under fair use - it seems that her Facebook page is active to this day. - Xbspiro (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    1. SG says: "In longer articles, avoid uniformly very short paragraphs, which may produce a bullet-like effect interfering with article flow." I intentionally edited these paragraphs to introduce variation in length. You'll see many of these are composed of quotes like the "In short, a life was taken simply..." paragraph, but others are not, like the "In the early evening..." paragraph. There are also some that are one sentence long. I aimed for variation, not uniform length.
    2. It would've been good to define SC, but I don't see any of the sources providing a definition and the common-knowledge principle doesn't apply in this instance. I'm quite certain we can request a link to wikt:SC be added even though the article is archived.
    3. It seems obvious Wentworth Point is a suburb of Sydney specifically. We have stated we are talking about a woman of Sydney, with no other cities mentioned.
    4. That is a good point; ditto with No. 2, but with {{w}} obviously.
    5. Well, the trial was not the focal event here. Who she was convicted by is not as relevant as what happened (the background for this story is basically in chronological order). I don't see any problem with this.
    6. Yes, the Supreme Court was the first court to hear this case. This is stated by not mentioning the nonexistent previous courts to hear the case. It would be unnecessary to explicitly say: "This was the first court to hear the case." Usually if an appeal is possible, on the other hand, that would be stated.
    7. I've been discouraged from fair use in the past and learned en.wn's informal FU restrictions (i.e., beyond the no-news agency-files-rule) are much stricter than en.wp's. Perhaps I would've added that image if there was one image or none.
    TL;DR: I believe I've addressed points 1, 3, 5, 6, and 7 and provided archive-compatible remedies to 2 and 4. In any case, it is important to remember FAs are not supposed to be perfect, but rather "the best of Wikinews at that time". Heavy Water (talk) 01:47, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Nos. 2 and 4 are   Done. Heavy Water (talk) 13:35, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support:With the main issues described above fixed, and for the length of the article, I definitely support. Johnson524 (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Seems like a good, in depth article. Ash Thawley (talk) (calendar) 12:52, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Good article.--Bddpaux (talk) 21:02, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support as author. --QuantumControl (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Comprehensive and well-written. Thriftycat (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please list new candidates at the top.