Wikinews talk:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions
From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
[edit] See also
Some related info, at w:Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Cirt (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Reviewing quality
 Please remove the {{flag}} when the discussion is complete or no longer important. |
I've said what I want on this one. Please look at the as-reviewed version linked to in that talk page section. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:03, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of removing it as the top main lead off the Main Page. Please note that in doing so I made the replaced it with the most recently published article which I happened to write; my intention was not to make an article I wrote more visible and I'm happy for anyone to replace it with another article. I put the third most recently article (Ex-cosmonaut Konstantin Feoktistov dies; Soviet space pioneer was 83) as top left lead, a slot previously occupied by said Former Iranian vice-president sentenced to six years; released on bail pending appeal article. --Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 11:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- This was on Lead 1? I never noticed that; certainly wasn't good enough to go there. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think this discussion needs to be moved to the articles talk page or broadened beyond the one article. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- There was the issue on this particular article, and the points to bring that up to scratch should be dealt with on it's talk. However, various of the issues - such as conforming to the style guide and being cognizant of an international reader audience - are more important to bring up here. If not already present in rules/guidelines for reviewers they should be incorporated into such. Scattering the various "sub-standard" review issues hither and yon is probably a bad idea; it leaves the knowledge and experience needing found through 'wiki-archaeology', instead of all being in one place. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- That was basically my point. There are other articles (IDK which) that have similar issues. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 22:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- There was the issue on this particular article, and the points to bring that up to scratch should be dealt with on it's talk. However, various of the issues - such as conforming to the style guide and being cognizant of an international reader audience - are more important to bring up here. If not already present in rules/guidelines for reviewers they should be incorporated into such. Scattering the various "sub-standard" review issues hither and yon is probably a bad idea; it leaves the knowledge and experience needing found through 'wiki-archaeology', instead of all being in one place. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think this discussion needs to be moved to the articles talk page or broadened beyond the one article. --RockerballAustralia (talk) 11:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
- This was on Lead 1? I never noticed that; certainly wasn't good enough to go there. --Brian McNeil / talk 11:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
