Wikinews:Featured article candidates/archive/4

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →

Contents
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.


Satanism: An interview with Church of Satan High Priest Peter Gilmore [edit]

I really liked this one, quite thought-provoking. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Comment Could a few more people look over this nomination and comment/vote to build a more solid consensus? --Brian McNeil / talk 16:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Support as nom (N.B. Not author). --Brian McNeil / talk 17:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Although not exactly hard news, this is one of the most interesting pieces ever published by wikinews imho. Bawolff ☺☻ 17:37, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This digs past the preconceptions to produce a fascinating read Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Great interview. Tempodivalse [talk] 03:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support --Found this one quite early on in my Wikinews career and found it very interesting.    Tris   12:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Result: Pass, no objections and unanimous support after one month Tempodivalse [talk] 14:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

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 nomination. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

US, UK investigators seek 777 engine redesign to stop repeat of London jet crash [edit]

Although this is shorter than many FAs, I'm pretty sure this is the best English language coverage of this from any news source - that's both mainstream press and a specialist publication or two. That has to count for something. Apart from one or two pieces lifted from the Beeb, this came entirely from original sources, which are quite in-depth pieces of work and had to be read in full. (Disclaimer: some pieces, I forget which, were lifted from the NTSB) Further, I put a lot of work into trying to make a dry and technical pice into something that would appeal to a wider audience without sensationalising (Daily Fail style) or going light on detail (Guardian et al style). I'm forced to admit that I wasn't much of a team player on this one, however Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 21:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Neutral I appreciate that this took a lot of effort and time to write, and the style of writing is quite good, but I just don't think it's big enough, especially with no OR and limited images. Also, I'd prefer featured articles to be our own work, whereas this is partially lifted from the NTSB reports. It's a solid, above-average piece, i'm just unsure it's FA quality. Tempodivalse [talk] 23:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support It helps to give you a good visual impression of what's going on, but it is a bit on the short side.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rayboy8 (talk • contribs)
  • Support—your assertion that "this is the best English language coverage of this from any news source" appears to be true, and makes this—although it is on the short side—the kind of work we need to showcase. Dendodge T\C 18:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as per Rayboy8 --RockerballAustralia (talk) 03:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
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.

Karzai declared winner of Afghan elections, runoff polls cancelled [edit]

This is the follow-up to my other in-depth Afghan election article. I think i did a fair job of compiling information from different sources into a pretty in-depth article, and I'd like to suggest it for FA status. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:53, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Weak support There is a lot of wishy-washy commentary. That said... What else to write about? I don't really know what doesn't grab me about this article. One thing I will say is that it could contain more from the Afghans and better 'international' reactions than just the UK and US. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Neutral, tending towards oppose - Wikinews has done a lot of better stuff than this. I'd categorise as "Good", but not "Featured". --Brian McNeil / talk 17:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support It has to be said that this was quite a good peace of work. Support. --Rayboy8 (my talk) 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support—not the best FA ever, but it scrapes at the criteria vigorously enough that I can't oppose. Dendodge T\C 18:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: It's made it through. General support, albeit very reserved. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:40, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

US free speech lawyer Marc Randazza discusses Glenn Beck parody [edit]

Another great interview which was seriously well researched. --Rayboy8 (my talk) 18:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Support. Thanks very much, it did take a bit of research. :) Cirt (talk) 22:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Interview itself was actually kinda brief compared to some, but it's still very good work. All the work to put the various pieces together is impressive once again. One minor niggle, we're expected to know who "the Respondent" is for a little while, then suddenly get it explained as "the Respondent's [web site owner]". I don't have any real preference wether it is explained at all or not, but it should be done at the first mention if at all. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:22, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
Made a minor tweak [1]. Cirt (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as the nominator for this article. --Rayboy8 (my talk) 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support    Tris   09:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted with unanimous support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

One year on: IFALPA's representative to ICAO, pilot and lawyer on ongoing prosecution of Garuda Indonesia Flight 200 pilot [edit]

I regret the title, but otherwise I made quite a comprehensive overview of a controversial situation here. The interview itself has short answers and his refusal to speculate got it off to a bad start, but the second half produces plenty of insight and damning criticism of the investigative process. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 16:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Support Title is indeed a bit confusing, but that alone shouldn't cause it to fail. This was a good read, quite in-depth, and overall deserving of FA status, imho. Tempodivalse [talk] 16:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support This has definitely got to be worth Featured Article status considering the great length and interview involved in the article, as well as the images helping to give a good visual impression. Well done Blood Red Sandman! --Rayboy8 (my talk) 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support    Tris   09:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as per Tempodivalse --RockerballAustralia (talk) 13:07, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted with unanimous support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

Creator of website satirizing Glenn Beck on winning domain name case [edit]

I believe that this was a very good interview and it was very in-depth. Rayboy8 (my talk) 14:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Support I wonder if some of Cirt's other recent pieces on this and that assault trial are also worthy. Vast amounts of effort spent on this story, with a pretty damning anti-Beck interview to cap it off. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Cirt must have spent an extraordinary amount of effort on writing this up (31 kilobytes!). Very in-depth, good quality writing. Tempodivalse [talk] 15:09, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. If I could pick one thing I would have liked to see in it would be a small clip from Beck foaming at the mouth on TV and EH's commentary on that. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. It was indeed a bit of effort. Thanks all for the kind words. :) Cirt (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I stand by what I said when I nominated this article for featured article status. --Rayboy8 (my talk) 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted with unanimous support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

Buffalo, N.Y. hotel proposal threatened by possible lawsuit [edit]

I thought that this could potentially be a good featured article. Quite a lot of this is first hand. Rayboy8 (my talk) 14:43, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Funnily enough, I was thinking earlier that some of Dragon's Buffalo OR might produce good candidates. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Support Now that mess with the format is in a more acceptable state. There's still a bit of whitespcae, though. Actual content is very good. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support because this was well-executed OR. --Brian McNeil / talk 15:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Images, original reporting, firsthand stuff, great work. Cirt (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as nominator. --Rayboy8 (my talk) 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Promoted with unanimous support Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 14:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

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. –Juliancolton | Talk 21:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

China offers Africa financial aid including $10 billion in loans [edit]

I literally sat down and thought 'I'd like to write a featured article today'. Did I manage it? Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Support A bit on the short side for an FA (9.5 kilobytes) but seems comprehensive enough. Great work. Tempodivalse [talk] 18:43, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Hits all the right marks. Cirt (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I think you did manage to create a featured article, Blood Red Sandman. --Rayboy8 (my talk) 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
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.

Swine flu: recent developments worldwide [edit]

Nominating another one of my lengthy swine flu pieces. While there's no OR and not many people contributed to it, i think that i did a decent job of combining information from different sources into an in-depth article, and that it's comprehensive enough for an FA. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • There is an unbalance in the reporting. This would be due in part to limitations in the sources, not really your fault. The individual sections are fine, with more coverage for the worse hit, but "Egypt, Bulgaria, and Nicaragua each reported their first case, while Lebanon reported three" and don't get sections, whereas Vietnam gets one with four cases, only one a new development. I get the thinking behind this, but often the first case was the most interesting, when various countries had their initial reactions. There are also a couple of prose issues - Russia: "It is currently uncertain how he obtained the virus" makes it sound like he collected it on purpose and put it in his pocket, like a rare stone or banned chemical. Turkey: "...through a connected flight over Turkey entered to İstanbul Atatürk International Airport" - clumsy and doesn't make much sense. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment map fixed, please don't let the Commoners delete the new version. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:55, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Support As nominator. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:28, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I hate to do this considering how much work has gone into this, but the issues I raised above add up I'm afraid. Sorry Tempo. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 15:41, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose for similar reasons to BRS, plus the map is not specific to the time of publication. That should be fixed ASAP - archived or not - instead of displaying a map months, and months more recent than the article. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:33, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Blood Red Sandman. Sorry. --Rayboy8 (my talk) 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: Failed due to the prose issues and problems with coverage Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 19:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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.


Philippines ferry disaster: ship owner sues over toxic cargo; recovery deadline set & more [edit]

I'm nominating this because I disaprove of the fact that Brian is gaining a monopoly on FAs I feel that I did a very good job of collecting together all the various bits and pieces going on here from local news sources to create a very comprehensive coverage of what was a fairly hectic time with that story. Downpoints: There are effectively only two sources here since there are several differant articles from each source, and that title. I think an ancient discussion on my talk concerned this; although I came up with an alternative, for whatever reason the title never changed. BTW, I can think of one or two other possible candidates that may be better than this but unless people say they don't mind I won't put any more up for now to prevent a flood of me. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 00:01, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

  • Comment I tend to similar thoughts as Tempo expresses below — plus I amusedly object to the struck jab at myself in the presentation of the FA candidate. It is nearly a too-good impersonation of my rather abrasive attempts to be amusing. If you really want more FAs listed on your userpage then take to heart the closing comment I made to Sandy (WikiBlue (talk · contribs)) when interviewed. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:45, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Actually, I don't keep a trophy cabinet on my userpage. I wasn't altogether serious; I had been meaning for a while to place a short string of things through this page. I'm pretty much at the last one now. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 17:49, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I've sorta come to the conclusion the trophy cabinet bit has to go on my userpage. I need to revamp the whole thing; I'm no fan of the "stamp-collecting" of userboxes and language-proficiency shtick; I just want a "more professional" page, and I'm looking at a real headache finding a photo of me I'm happy to let loose on Commons. It certainly won't be the one used elsewhere because that is my passport photo, I'm not sure about the wisdom of that and, I may have ceded rights in using it for my ID. --Brian McNeil / talk 18:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • I could never be bothered fixing up my userpage. It's one of these 'maybe one day' things. If I was going to boast of anything on my userpage it would be that Nazi interview, plus the project I'm working on, and that's it. Anyway, we're drifting off-topic.... Back to work for me. Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:18, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Votes [edit]

  • Weak support Under 10kb with no OR or images, I think it's a bit on the short side, FA-wise, but still comprehensive enough for standards. And I don't mind you adding more FA candidates to this page, to the contrary, bring them on! :-) We need more FAs. Tempodivalse [talk] 00:37, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak support as per all above comments -RockerballAustralia (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support I think this is detailed and in-depth enough. OR would have been nice, but there are limits on covering physically remote stuff. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support It's good enough, I suppose. --Rayboy8 (my talk) 18:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: Promoted, support unanimous if a bit reserved Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 18:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

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.

Shimon Peres discusses the future of Israel [edit]

How come nobody ever nommed this? We made history with this, dammit! Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Comments [edit]

Votes [edit]

  • Support I'm quite surprised this wasn't nominated much earlier. Excellent, very in-depth interview. Certainly has the "wow factor". Tempodivalse [talk] 23:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support—a fab article, even without the historical interest. Dendodge T\C 23:25, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. David wasn't interested in the recognition from Featured Article status on Wikinews. It was a wider recognition of work he looked for from doing stuff on enwn. I didn't like the interviewee that came across in this, but the job was well done. I preferred the high priest of Satan interview for a thought-provoking piece. --Brian McNeil / talk 23:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Support. Very well done piece. Cirt (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Result: Promoted. Of course ;). Blood Red Sandman (Talk) (Contribs) 23:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

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 3 |
Archive 4
| Archive 5 →
Retrieved from "http://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews:Featured_article_candidates/archive/4&oldid=1016386"