Wikinews

Wikinews:Featured article candidates/archive/7

< Wikinews:Featured article candidates‎ | archive
← Archive 6 |
Archive 7
| Archive 8 →
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.

Promoted. -- Cirt (talk) 20:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One year on: Egyptians mark anniversary of protests that toppled Mubarak

Self-nominating; I'm nowadays of the view that covering major stories against mainstream media should be done very well if at all, and this is my effort at just that. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support And an excellent — plus most-comprehensive — example this is. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:57, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Just to riff a bit on short synthesis about major stories. It has its uses; depending on how msm covers it, putting things into clear neutral perspective may have significant value for readers too (plus, of course, the experience it provides to the author(s) and the rounding it provides to our archives). But I admit, short synthesis seems to me more suited to under-reported stories. It's certainly a capital mistake to write a short item on a widely covered story just because we "should have something on it". </riff>
This article is worthy. --Pi zero (talk) 21:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This article has several strong points that make it worthy for nomination and support: The author's focus coincided with the first anniversary of the Jan. 25, 2011 protests and added the most recent information about the country's transition. Timely! This took forethought, advanced preparation and diligence to meet the deadline. The author's comprehensive overview, or depth, was well organized and could be divided into at least three sections: 1) transition to a new government, 2) the economy, and 3) human rights. One suggestion for improvement would be to use sections that would make it easier to read. The reporter also used quality sources and provided the audience with good information about each point. The contrasting photos of Tahir Square "then" and "now" was a good approach to show continuation of negative public sentiment toward the government. The main reason I support this nomination is that the article used synthesis to add perspective. Crtew (talk) 17:39, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, comprehensive, good use of four (4) quality images, important topic, of educational value for the public. -- Cirt (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2012 (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.

Syrian citizen journalists risk death, targeted; city of Homs facing starvation

If we didn't all know this is exemplary, we wouldn't have devoted so much post-publish discussion to how to make it easier to approach this level of work in future. --Pi zero (talk) 17:36, 3 March 2012 (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.

Past Eurovision contestants give advice to this year's performers, speculate on who will win

I think the most in-depth piece Mike did. The number of people he chased down comment from is what makes this most impressive — even if Eurovision makes me thing "Die Wogan Die!" --Brian McNeil / talk 17:21, 18 February 2012 (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.
Successful Blood Red Sandman (Talk)  (Contribs) 15:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Observing the 2012 Human Trafficking Awareness Day in the US, and wider world

Imho a compelling read. It's got "only" two pictures, but they're good ones. Not only is OR not a requirement for an FA, but it isn't even the first listed optional-but-encouraged criterion at WN:WIAFA. First listed is "articles that were worked on by several authors, to highlight the collaborative nature of Wikinews." We often forget that one, because multi-author news writing turns out to be difficult to do well; but in this case the article has over a dozen authors (fourteen, is it?), and did come out well, so I think it a very solid candidate. (Nor was I the first to mention "FA" in the same breath with this article; but I am nominating it.) --Pi zero (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominator. --Pi zero (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the highly collaborative nature of this in-depth report. What it has highlighted are some of the difficulties in that type of work. As Crtew pointed out, where TIME have a multi-author piece, one person is tasked with going over the article in its entirety to make it flow and 'paper over' the cracks from differing author styles; disclosure: I did a substantial amount of the work in that respect here. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for a nicely collaborative piece, in spite of the fact I was left wanting a better discussion of how human trafficking is linked to tourism. The article highlights a massively overlooked problem; I'm reminded of this piece (which spun out from this case) which anyone interested in the subject should read; a great shame I forgot about it whilst the WN article was being prepared. Excellent collaboration, which is hard in a news context. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:37, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support It is a solid article with lots of nice collaboration--Cspurrier (talk) 23:25, 27 January 2012 (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 interviews former Salt Lake City mayor and 2012 presidential candidate Rocky Anderson

William's hit a great one here, with a wonderful set of detailed responses that make for a first-class interview. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 01:04, 16 January 2012 (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.

Billy West, voice of Ren and Stimpy, Futurama, on the rough start that shaped his life

David S. collected more than a few good interviews; this one, having just re-read it, definitely meets all the criteria I look for in content that should be featured. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:32, 15 January 2012 (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 successful, although higher participation in these discussions would be better. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:39, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cypriot court clears all of wrongdoing in Greek air disaster

Not so long ago, 10kb or so was a solid FA candidate. I'm a little concerned that the FA bar has been raised somewhat by a string of particularly exceptional articles (Diego's military plane crash, Dendodge's space junk, Brian's cultural tours, my own schizobipolar genetics - all with OR). Nonetheless, I'm going to self-nom what I feel is a solid piece of synthesis and the best English coverage I saw of what should have been a major international story. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:43, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Heh. I believe the expression is, "We've upped our standards; so, up yours!" I like this article, and it's pretty well-written. Don't dispute probably better pieced together than the majority of mainstream coverage. But, I'm going to defer voting for now. I'll most likely support, but want to see how the rest of the community reacts to your comments about rising FA quality criteria. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:45, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Interesting article, interesting topic. Meets criteria. Overall a good candidate. Also (not that it matters) it's the best, if not only, english language article covering the decision. Cocoaguytalkcontribs‽ 19:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Was just waiting to see a 2nd opinion, and largely agree with how Cocoaguy puts this. (And, I'm popping in another long-overlooked candidate above. --Brian McNeil / talk 21:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is solid news coverage. Granted, a lot of great articles might cause the bar to rise a bit; a little bar-raising isn't necessarily a bad thing, within reason, but — ultimately, FA status is not a zero sum game. A deserving article should get listed. --Pi zero (talk) 01:41, 16 January 2012 (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.

successful Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A portrait of Scotland: Gallery reopens after £17.6 million renovation

Another "cultural" opening/press preview. I overheard one of the other journalists commenting to a colleague he'd to write 750 words on the reopening of the portrait gallery. It seemed a little,... terse to try and cover the event so briefly. So, angling for another FA to add to my list. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rockerball, I need an explanation on your comment. One beyond "No sleep 'til Brixton". --Brian McNeil / talk 22:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Something of "cultural importance" is worth more than 750 word (I think this is about twice as long). And, I'm liking the way the article is laid out. --RockerballAustralia c 10:40, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My count, including maybe a few dozen words of image captions but filtering out artifacts like templates and apostrophe-s possessives, came to 2493 words. --Pi zero (talk) 17:33, 9 December 2011 (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.
Promoting as successful per votes, with the IP address comment taken as a vote of support from someone most definitely not involved in any way with the production of this piece. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:53, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'Fascinating' and 'provocative' research examines genetic elements of bipolar, schizophrenia

A really extraordinary piece. My favorite comment from the comments page:

Excellent article. Best one out there on this subject right now and extremely up-to-date. Usually articles on this subject re-hash the same old ideas ad nauseam, but this was actually fascinating and provocative, as the title suggests. Gives me a new respect for Wikinews for sure. — 74.205.176.200
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.
Assuming DenDodge's vote transfers to "support" on the basis of carried-out grammatical improvements, thus promoting as successful. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:22, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Military plane crashes in Chilean Juan Fernández Archipelago; reports say no survivors

I've got a feeling that this article, though not completely "original", is one of the best works I've ever done here, and deserves to be a FA. アンパロ Io ti odio! 05:52, 21 September 2011 (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.
Closing as successful; great article, meets all the criteria. --Brian McNeil / talk 10:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Out of space in outer space: Special report on NASA's 'space junk' plans

Self-nominating this article, because it's long, in-depth, original reporting, and probably the best thing I've written to date. I'm not sure what more I can say. DENDODGE 11:35, 18 September 2011 (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.

Not passed, but with individual articles potentially facing individual nomination. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Delist old articles that have not been peer reviewed

Given the importance we place on verifiability, &c., maybe we should delist articles that haven't been fully {{peer reviewed}}. Of course, it's always possible to review an old article, by just checking everything and placing the template on the talk page, but I don't think we should be featuring things that have not been verified and looked over by a reviewer to the standards we currently require. This probably isn't the best place for this (and it's really only a very minor issue anyway), but I figured this is where it would receive the most attention. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dendodge (talk • contribs) 12:16, 6 August 2011

  • Oppose Our archives do contain some really quite poor articles because there was no requirement that each one be scrutinized by a reviewer — but FA candidates presumably were scrutinized, by the community, so the lack-of-standards argument seems to me inapplicable to FAs as a class.
It's not clear that our standards for the highest quality work have changed all that much. If there is concern with one or more specific FAs from the before, they should be nominated individually for delisting. --Pi zero (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2011 (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.

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

This was submitted previously, and there was some dispute due to certain people finding the article non-neutral and perhaps not understanding how things work when dealing with large corporation's legal and PR people.

As far as I'm concerned, this was the most comprehensive coverage of the issue, and I'd people from Wikipedia confirm their opinion was it did not breach NPOV. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:20, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Surely you meant to say "$6 billion in penalties" instead of "six billion penalties"? :( I hope that error is reversible under the archive policy, because this article at first glance looks great! I'll take a closer look at the NPOV claims if the error in the title can be fixed. Ragettho (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll defer to someone else's opinion, but as it is now archived a rename (leaving redirect) is technically possible. The NPoV "concerns" were that, shall we say, "I didn't 'assume good faith'" when I was directed to the blog of a lawyer supposed to be an expert on the matter; in reality, said lawyer was a paid lobbyist to the Canadian parliament, for the music industry. Numerous stated points by that lawyer were factually inaccurate - if not outright lies. The individual raising these concerns had no experience of Original Reporting, or of dealing with lawyers, public relations people, or spin-doctors. Brian (talk · contribs) (New Zealand) found those allegations unsubstantiated, or justified. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: There's really no NPOV issue here, IMHO. This is an excellent article, and it covers the issue very well (I'd be willing to bet it's the best coverage there is). The issues raised aren't enough to keep it from being featured, in my judgement. DENDODGE 20:30, 30 September 2011 (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 failing, with one dissenting vote. --Brian McNeil / talk 14
37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Small Texas town hosts large baseball tournament

Considering that the article is about a single event, I believe it covered the event properly and broadly. I had a heavy amount of OR and lots of photos (admittedly, the photo layout isn't quite as perfect as I'd like, but it's hard to get those photos to behave with wiki-markup!!) It may not be the longest article to ever reach FA status, but I think it hits all the needed marks. --Bddpaux (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

  • Oppose It's a perfectly good article. I enjoyed it; simple, unassuming, and the pictures were fun. There's no need to measure it against FA status; it's happy being what it is, and simply doesn't move in the FA social circle. In terms of the at-a-minimum FA criteria, one would say it doesn't qualify as comprehensive. --Pi zero (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Well, as nominator, I suppose I'm morally obligated to support my own work! :] --Bddpaux (talk) 21:36, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pi zero hits the nail on the head; this is much, much too short even by the standards of the shortest FAs. Comprehensiveness is not achieved. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 13:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose On similar grounds to those expressed by Pi zero. I'm aware you favour short articles, and the only way I could see something of this length qualifying as featured would be with exceptional, and - of course - comprehensive, multimedia content. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:03, 23 August 2012 (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.
Promoted with no objections at-all. --Brian McNeil / talk 20
03, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

No surprises for sport in 2012/2013 Australian federal budget

While it is difficult to get pictures for this article, I think it meets most of the rest of the criteria. I believe it covers the article comprehensively and it is a topic the rest of the Australian media ignored when they were covering the federal budget discussion. The article was primarily original research despite the sources at the bottom as it required looking through the budget information to get details. Several opinions were also included from people in the Australian sport sector. Yes, kind of lame to say: NO NEWS! but they gave comments.

Comments

Can we get a final ruling here? --Bddpaux (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • Support As nominator. --LauraHale (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; this is in-depth and, as stated in the nomination, covers an under-reported issue quite comprehensively. Part of the strength of Wikinews is getting away from following the mainstream on everything. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:52, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As brianmc says. Comprehensive on an under-reported story. Some FAs have images as a particular strength, and this isn't one of those, but it does well enough; as noted, the topic isn't scintillating with opportunities for action shots. --Pi zero (talk) 13:50, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I felt this was pretty solid on review. Nice use of primary sources, too. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 22:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ....save for one niggly little bit. The dollar amounts in that last paragraph get rather exhausting to read. (It's just a mind over numbers thing, that's all.) I'm all for inverted pyramid style, that's how it works here, but I'm not sure where that final paragraph fits into that model. In the end, though, I love to see any writer here going where others dare to tread. --Bddpaux (talk) 01:45, 26 July 2012 (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.

Non-sponsors' logos plastered by peeved Paralympians

While very short, I think it covers the topic comprehensively in terms of an interview. The whole thing was original research from an interview with a pair of Australian Paralympians. We had written notes and sound for it. The article was worked on and referenced during the Wikimedia Australia Wikinews workshop. The topic is one the Australian media, because their commercial nature, cannot cover but we at Wikinews were able to. It has pictures that were taken specifically for the article.

Comments

As first time nominator for this, would it be okay to withdraw this as it isn't going to pass and I have better understanding of criteria? How would I do that? --LauraHale (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can just close it down now. :) Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

  • Support As nominator. --LauraHale (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a solid article. It doesn't feel comprehensive, though — a feeling about not the interview, but the surrounding non-sponsorship story. --Pi zero (talk) 14:00, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Here's the deal:I'm gonna say No. Here's why: this article is a PICTURE-PERFECT EXAMPLE of how a slanted POV can creep into an article. See, I think that, for an article to reach FA status, that it really needs to adhere to both the LETTER and the SPIRIT of the law here. I liked this article....heck, I'm a social worker and I've spent GOBS of my life working with handicapped people. I like the take on things here and I'm sympathetic to their stand....this is insightful. But, just by the way it's presented here, a "big companies are bad"-tone slant starts to creep in. I might've even readied this article for publication, but it's just not FA material.......it just isn't, it might be close, but it doesn't get all the way there.....I'm sorry.Bddpaux (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We may actually be talking about the same thing, at least in a sense; but, interestingly, while we've both taken the same position on the nomination, I don't agree there's bias in it. It's an interview, and as such it mainly reports what the interviewee said. What very little information is there other than what the interviewee said, I don't think supports a charge of bias. I don't see the "big companies are bad" slant you're describing. But here of course I'm coming back to my point about comprehensiveness: one way, at least, to make a comprehensive article on this subject would have been to expand it into the background of the issue being protested about, in an investigative journalism sort of way, and then there would be a significant amount of information beyond what the interviewee said, hence more to be careful of re neutrality. --Pi zero (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2012 (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.

Sandra Fluke insists she will not be silenced

I nominate this article for featured status. Around late February and early March, I noticed a number of stories that were of high quality and brought a visual angle through the use of video. This article taps the C-SPAN video library and the U.S. presidential archive. It is one of several stories that are influencing me right now, and I'm wanting people to see it and tell them, "Hey, look what Wikinews can do!" Crtew (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2012 (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 SUCCESSFUL and promoted to FA.
Was open a long time, not a single oppose vote. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:01, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

'Davos man' versus 'Camp Igloo'; 42nd World Economic Forum convenes in Swiss alps

Before the Syrian article (below), I managed to pull a bunch of video stuff together for this article. It also is fairly in-depth. So, subbing as potential FA. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:02, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

  • Support One of several stories around the same at Wikinews that broke new ground in combining video and print! Another great example of what Wikinews can do. In this, both the Sandra Fluke and the Syrian citizen journalist pieces, also stands out. Crtew (talk) 15:11, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, great use of citizen journalism, multiple types of media sources, and article compilation and construction. -- Cirt (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This was fantastic research. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:28, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Appears to tick all the boxes. --LauraHale (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cheeky support vote for my own article. Glad to see some of the comments here in the FAC, it's always good to push the envelope on what we can do. The main problem I experienced in creating this, and in other articles with video content, is time; transcoding and whatnot is slow. There is, if we're going to do more stuff like this, going to be a need to be able to throw quite a bit of CPU power at video clip rendering and transcoding. And, were we to start looking to do ~40-minute length items (a reasonable length for a 'real' news/current affairs programme), we'd need to have a back-door into uploading that onto Wikimedia Commons. --Brian McNeil / talk 14:06, 1 June 2012 (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.

England's elderly face human rights breaches in home care system

I don't hold an enormous amount of confidence on this getting FA; I've written many a longer article, and done an awful lot of more detailed stuff. But, I would value the feedback that goes with an FAC review being applied to this. Essentially, I'm using the review process to (forgive the word choice) ask for a post-mortem on this article.

It's pure synthesis, which in my opinion/experience means our work needs to grind the mainstream press into the dirt. Does it do that? I'd completely forgotten about writing it, utterly forgotten and only noted it when looking for Human Rights stuff for unrelated reasoning. It didn't draw a lot of comments, but the two it did, indicate that the elderly people who've still got most of their bag of marbles likely found it a compelling read. Enough for FA? Dunno. But, we learn as a community; how, in a timely manner, do people think - if this doesn't merit FA status - it could have been elevated to that? --Brian McNeil / talk 23:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • Comment Obviously hopeless for FA as-per the depth issues raised above, but in terms of feedback: This seems about as far as synthesis might easily go in this case. That's a long way from being able to trout mainstream. One possible pure-synthesis route would be to look for extensive background; off the top of my head, have issues like this been raised in Parliament? Has there been litigation from home care failures? Have charities been campaigning for these improvements? On the OR side of things, a few cool options also spring to mind; get some elderly English people on the phone, perhaps, or talk to a selection of MPs on their responses (bonus points for any politicians haned certain responsibilities relevant to this). Tracking down some people who actually provide home care would also be excellent. These are problematic OR targets in that both carers and their patients are likely to want to be anonymous. Nonetheless, these are my immediate impressions on what may have elevated this to exceptionally good. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 12:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Private Eye is chock-full of stories of major failings in the, largely privatised, care of the elderly. <cough>, <cough> Southern Cross et-al. --Brian McNeil / talk 12:46, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well... I recall lots of care homes (Southern Cross, etc), but I'm not sure offhand how much home care. Although... I'd feel fairly safe assuming the answer to all these is 'yes'. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:12, 13 June 2012 (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.

Spain starts 2013 IPC Alpine World Championships with first and fifth place finishes

This one deserve FA if only for the EXCELLENT photos!! --Bddpaux (talk) 19:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Votes

Support as nominator. --Bddpaux (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2013 (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.

Same-sex marriage in the UK passes second reading in Commons

A fine piece of work, imho. --Pi zero (talk) 18:48, 16 February 2013 (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.

Wikinews interviews Aurélien Miralles about Sirenoscincus mobydick species discovery

I found this a fascinating look at the discovery of a new species. It certainly has great pictures, which have been useful for various topics on various projects. It appeals, I suppose, to the science geek in me. --Pi zero (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2013 (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.

Wikinews interviews Spain's most decorated Paralympian, Teresa Perales

Engaging interview. (Disclosure: I reviewed it.) --Pi zero (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2013 (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.

Three cities submit bids for 2020 Summer Olympics

  • Self nomination, but I think it is a good summary of the merits of the three major bids for the Olympic Games, has a nice use of images, is comprehensive without being overly long and wordy. It also gives an idea of the process, which assisted in making it newsworthy. --LauraHale (talk) 16:52, 21 January 2013 (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.


ACLU President Strossen on religion, drugs, guns and impeaching George Bush

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Featured_article_candidates/archive/7&oldid=4514856"