Wikinews

Wikinews:Featured article candidates/archive/5

< Wikinews:Featured article candidates | archive
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →
This is an archive of past discussions from Wikinews:Featured article candidates/archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current page.



The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Investigation into US Airways river ditching in New York completed

Better written than the sources. --InfantGorilla (talk) 16:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

Result: Not Successful. --James Pain (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Chilean earthquakes in the O'Higgins Region: a photoessay

My second photoessay in the same rythm as my first one. I think the pictures are outstanding and that's my greatest OR. --Diego Grez return fire 00:43, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • This is a serious and thorough example of what Wikinews aims for. I would ask you to ignore the couple of blurry shots and the occasional idiosyncrasy of phrasing, to showcase an example of work from a citizen who went out to find the news, presented it well, even uncovered a pair of 'before and after' images: and donated it all to the commons. --InfantGorilla (talk) 08:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    :) They would have been better if my camera had not fell down from the second floor during the earthquake. --Diego Grez return fire 17:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Result: Success Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Polish President Lech Kaczyński dies as his plane crashes in Russia

I had started this article initially and later others expanded it. It seems quite comprehensive to me and it is likely that the article is quite close to FA standard. I'm not entirely sure about it, but it seems good enough to me. Pmlineditor discuss 09:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

Result: Approved

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Tony Blair tells Iraq Inquiry he would invade again

This is an article I feel goes quite in-depth about Britain's involvement in the Iraq war and reasoning by Blair as to why he would have authorised the British Army to participate in the invasion again, along with information regarding questions as to the legality of the invasion and subsequent response. This has provided for excellent context making the article easier to understand for those who may not be fully aware of the information surrounding the Iraq war as it relates to the UK. Calvinhrn (talk) 17:03, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

Result: Successful! --James Pain (talk) 00:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Wikinews discusses H1N1 with the WHO

This is an article I feel a bit of pride behind. I spent about a month with Elizabeth Mah chatting via email to gather all the answers and a bit of time waiting for the okay from the WHO's virologists. --Mikemoral♪♫ 02:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

Result: Successful. --James Pain (talk) 00:10, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



2010 BRIT Awards highlights

I am certain that this is the longest article that I have ever written. It is certainly longer in length than some articles that are currently featured. I also think that this is really in-depth. It is partially a broadcast report. I believe that this is worthy for becoming a featured article, but what do you think? --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 22:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

Result: Not Successful. --James Pain (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Icelandic government passes Icesave deal; €12,000 debt per citizen

Now that it's old enough, I'm submitting this one. I'll let the people on NewsTrust give their opinions. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

  • Weak oppose/Neutral Another great article, but at barely 6.7kB - and a lot of that is source formatting - it's kinda scraping it for depth, current community opinion seems to be that FAs should have a minimum of around 10kB. It's not significantly larger than our average article. A good article, no doubt, just not, imo, the "best of the best". FA, in my mind, should only be reserved for our biggest, most in-depth "scoops", or when our coverage has been significantly more detailed than that of most mainstream sources. Tempodivalse [talk] 14:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment On that latter point, it was. Absolutely nobody else mentioned Mandelson's involvement (from Wikileaks, after he'd left the European Commission); nobody else, in the then-current coverage, mentioned Icelanders comparing the deal to the German terms post-WWI, or that the Icelandic government considered this a force majeur where they could default and walk away. Had I gone into the implications of that you'd have jumped on me for NPOV concerns. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Result: More than enough time has passed. Approved. --James Pain (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Chilean earthquakes: in pictures

I really like how this article ended. I put a lot of work on this and I think this is my best article. I've taken the most of the photos that are on the gallery. What do you think? --Diego Grez let's talk 02:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Closed as promoted --Pmlineditor discuss 09:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interview with Reggie Bibbs on his life with neurofibromatosis

This article does make for a very interesting read. --Rayboy8 (my talk) (my contributions) 11:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Closed as promoted --Mikemoral♪♫ 22:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Haiti relief efforts: in depth and Haitian earthquake: in pictures

I'm nominating these two articles in one vote, because they were intended as "companion" articles to complement each other, and both directly link to each other in the text. I think I did a fairly decent job of compiling both prose and free-use images into an in-depth report. The photoessay has about 32 pictures, mainly of high-resolution, the textual piece has just short of 10kb, which seems about the minimum for an FA. Votes and comments, please. Tempodivalse [talk] 13:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Closed as not promoted. Mikemoral♪♫ 19:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Payment pending; Canadian recording industry set for six billion penalties?

"As I'm 99.9% confident this is the most comprehensive coverage of this issue and exposes a Machiavellian lobbyist to public scrutiny I would like this, when appropriate, put forward as a WN:FAC." Your wish is granted Brian. Good work. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

  • Support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose, changed from neutral (copied partially from the old request) I'm still not totally comfortable with the way things are presented in the article. I hate to be flogging a dead horse, and I'm probably just imagining things, but, even after rereading the "lobbyists?" section several times, I'm not completely satisfied that things are being covered as objectively as they could have been. I decided to drop the issue after a somewhat heated discussion on the talk page, because several other users disagreed with me - plus I didn't want to be perceived as nagging/a nuisance - but I'm slightly concerned nonetheless. See talk page of said article for some specific examples of my concerns. If anyone can explain to me in a little more detail how this is sufficiently neutral, and refute my opinions, I'll gladly reconsider my vote as the rest of the article seems great. (Also, minor issue: shouldn't the title be "Payment pending; Canadian recording industry set for six billion in penalties?" They didn't receive 6bn individual penalties, would they?) Tempodivalse [talk] 16:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose --Fraid I'm the same as Tempo. I was just planning on abstaining, but there haven't been any other votes for some reason, maybe the same. Very good coverage Brian & I know it took a huge amount of work, as did your INDECT article that I commented on. However, we have this NPOV thing and often it's annoying and hard to stay neutral, maybe it's not for the best, but it's here at the moment and is what makes us different, I like to think anyway.    Tris   18:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I'm very, very unhappy at these votes on the basis of an appeal to WN:NPOV. They're useless and should be withdrawn if people cannot make clear actionable reasoning as to why an article is not neutral or unduly presents one specific viewpoint. If you're uncomfortable with investigative journalism and feel that is incompatible with Wikinews' project mission – then there's really no point to running the project. These is a notable difference between actively approaching a story from a particular POV and the end-result. I'm quite sure that, in this and the other case you cite, it is clear the critical POV I approached the surface-level story from, and the considerable move towards neutrality. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think I've provided very specific reasoning as to my concern over NPOV on the article talk page, and don't think I'm being unreasonable. I can relist my concerns here if you like. Basically, I don't believe the choice of wording in the "lobbyists?" section is appropriate. Words like "clearly" and "undoubtedly", IMO, try to foist a certain opinion onto the reader; we should let the reader come to his own conclusion whether something is obvious or not. I believe such and similar subjective words should always be avoided outside of quotes. Then there's general phrasing in the "lobbyists?" section: to me, it seems unnecessarily scathing towards Sookman. I can bring up examples of that if needed. And I'm not against investigative journalism; to the contrary, I love when we run "exposé" type reports. But, they still have to be neutral, and represent the opposing point of view fairly. TBH, I don't think this story fully satisfies that. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bring it. Exact quotes from the article, specific actionable points where the "other side" was not given an opportunity to present their viewpoint. You didn't see the scheming bastards trying to fob me off that their paid lobbyist was a legal authority on the subject; try to find out his affiliations, who pays for the blog all the media get pointed at? Quite frankly, the opposing side got "enough rope". I don't take kindly to spindoctoring being aimed at me on television, nor via email and illusions created online. They stuck to the line, "nothing to see here, please move along". Well? This article is what they got. You appear to be asking don't publish what you can find if the other side stonewalls and bullshits you because that's not very nice. Wikinews does not have a BLP policy for a very, very good reason; the same reasoning should be applied when you're lied to (including by omission). I chose my words very, very carefully. If you actually do your own research into Sookman, you'll see I was rather charitable to him. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:40, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • *sigh* I see this is turning into a tempest-in-a-teacup. But okay, I'll bring it.
  • The biggest issue I have with the article is the following: "...if not lies, Sookman is undoubtedly not careful or "very qualified" in the way he speaks on the issue..." = This is, IMHO, inappropriate speculation. Regardless of how inept, dumb, lying, cheating, etc., that Sookman really is, Wikinews should not have any opinion on it. We should let the reader come to that conclusion.
  • Other parts of the section aren't as much of an issue, but bother me nonetheless: "What Sookman clearly overlooks is that..." + "As is clear, there is an increase..." = "clearly" is an opinion. To quote one of our policies, WN:WEASEL: "In written language, the word 'clearly' is often used to tell the reader that an argument or discussion is clear when it is not. In cases such as these, it is often useful to substitute the claim of "clearly" with actual clear writing."
  • Also, i'm not, as you said, suggesting that the other viewpoint wasn't given "enough rope". I think you provided more than enough quotes and prose from the other POV to balance it in terms of size. The problem, as I see it, is how the opposing viewpoint is portrayed.
  • Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 18:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're asking me to apply more Wikipediaesque "Assume Good Faith" than anyone here did with Mike Godwin. I despair; he's on our side, but I'm supposed to assume an employee of major record labels isn't actively lying; when, I've lost count of the number of times they've been proven to do so in a court of law. --Brian McNeil / talk 19:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem here is that what's very obvious to some people isn't to others. Sure, it seems quite clear to you that they're lying (FWIW, I think they are too), but not everybody will; we shouldn't foist that opinion on the reader. Just let the facts speak for themselves; if something truly is obvious, then the reader will come to the same conclusion you have come to, without needing to assert an opinion. Tempodivalse [talk] 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Talk about tempting me to nominate WN:WEASEL for deletion! You seem to agree my word-choice was most appropriate; then upbraid me on nitpickery related to dumb, inflexible, policies that imply disapproval of such. This is where Wikipedia and Wikinews are poles apart; Wikipedia has its "sanitation team" who'll zap any controversial material or article, Wikinews has (as you'll not see by not long-term lurking in IRC) several people who would welcome legal action against the site for its reportage. Perhaps that's why Mr Godwin, and others on the WMF staff, would like to see the project "gone". --Brian McNeil / talk 10:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "You seem to agree my word-choice was most appropriate..." = um, actually, that's exactly the opposite of what I was trying to convey in my above posts. You really haven't addressed why the content of said article does not violate WN:WEASEL. I don't have much time ATM to argue about this, i'll make a more detailed post later. Tempodivalse [talk] 12:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • <unindent> Every single word is backed up by the following few paragraphs and associated images. This is the plain and simple point I'm trying to make. Pulling those little fragments out, out of context, and picking on them absent the context in which they appear does not, to me, qualify for allegations of violation of WN:NPOV or WN:WEASEL. Sookman is authoring a polemicist's blog; he is being paid to advance the CRIA's position and financial interests. He is being paid to call into question the words of anyone who opposes his clients. My word choice is backed up fully by the article content. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to have gone back to the beginning, and not making any progress. It looks like the root dispute cause here is whether or not words like "undoubtedly" and "obviously" inherently constitute POV. I'm of the opinion that they do, you don't. Can we get some third-party input into this? Tempodivalse [talk] 18:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, sorry I forgot to check back here, hence the lack of answer. I agree with Tempo, regardless of whether it is this article or any other, the words above do not give the impression of being neutral. It may well be true, and it probably is obvious, but the reader should be allowed to decide that for themselves. Show it in the facts, without forcing it down their throats.    Tris   22:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • To once again reinforce my position, at the risk of repeating myself: using words such as "Clearly", "Obviously", and "Undoubtedly" are *always* subjective to personal POV, not neutral, and thus inappropriate outside of quotes. I believe that we should only assume something as fact if A) it is backed up by many reputable sources B) scientifically proven (e.g., the world is round) or C) historically proven (e.g., the Sept. 11 attacks occurred). In most other cases, we should mention who says it's a fact (for instance, "The BBC/USGS/whatever reported that...", or at least, "Reports say that...").
  • That might seem like a bit of an extreme position, but if you look at some of our articles, you'll notice that this is pretty much the principle we follow. For instance, when we talked of O.J. Simpson's '95 murder (or robbery), we called it "alleged" murder. We're very careful not to assert it as a fact, because there was still some dispute on it (and he was acquitted at the trial), even though I know, you know, and practically everybody, knows he really did do it.
  • As I've said before, we should just present the facts without assuming or asserting anything about them. The reader will come to the same opinion as yours if something, truly, is obvious. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this is inappropriately conflating synthesis reporting with investigative journalism carried out under the auspices of the project's original reporting policy. What I am saddened by is the lack of participants in this discussion. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:06, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same as Sandman here. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Closed as no-consensus. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2008: MediaWiki use in the U.S. Department of State

Funny thing was, I'd not thought of this one for ages. I ended up using it as an example of MediaWiki usage on LinkedIn. --Brian McNeil / talk 02:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks for the comments with the neutral votes so far. They're encouraging. I can see the reasoning behind them, and, if asked, I'll gracefully withdraw this nomination. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let a couple more people take a look, I think. If nothing else it's always good to hear a bit of feedback on your work. If there is still no support, then you could withdraw if you wanted to. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Votes


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



"Friday the 13" Buffalo, New York snow storm in pictures

Something a little unusual. I think this should become our first featured WN:PHOTOESSAY. Here, it is the quality of the photographs and not the text that should be judged. I'm sure we can all agree that they are quite magical. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Comment - I think the gallery should come before everything else since they comprise the main subject of the article. Not sure if this counts as a major content change, though. –Juliancolton | Talk 05:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That might help; I'd suggest for photoessays the lede not be so long that it pushes the gallery out of sight. Say you want to do that as, "lede, gallery, story continued" then I'd recommend the lede end with a "Continued..." link that skips the gallery and goes to the rest of the story. I don't think rearranging this article in that way qualifies as a significant content change. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.



Closed as promoted. Mikemoral♪♫ 19:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

City to sue owner of partially collapsed 19th century livery in Buffalo, New York

This was the climax of a great string of OR. Touch short, but amazing work nonetheless. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

THe general standard I've seen here lately is 10kb. It's right on that line. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:41, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Support --RockerballAustralia (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
← Archive 4 |
Archive 5
| Archive 6 →
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Featured_article_candidates/archive/5&oldid=4514826"