Wikinews talk:Flagged revisions/Requests for permissions
Contents |
See also [edit]
Some related info, at w:Wikipedia:Requests for permissions. Cirt (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Reviewing quality [edit]
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)
Mjroots [edit]
I'll make this quick; need to be elsewhere soon, but is anyone planning on closing Mjroot's request for editor status anytime soon? It's been there for two weeks, and nothing's come of it; probably be a good idea to not let it fall through the cracks. Cheers, C628 (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
- He failed. Just nobody wants to close it :-P --Diego Grez let's talk 01:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
Reconfirmation [edit]
Is there any objection to adding a reconfirmation section to this page? It doesn't seem like a big deal, since reconfirmation is voluntary —just a convenience for the self-nominator, really— but I figured I ought to give folks an opportunity to object, to avoid an embarrassing revert in case somebody does see a problem with it. --Pi zero (talk) 14:07, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Actually, I think a request for reconfirmation section here is a really good idea. What I think is worth discussing is what details a reconfirm should include. Off-the-cuff, I'd say a list of all articles reviewed in the last x weeks, or all noticably post-publish correction work on others' review work. -- Brian McNeil (alt. account) /alt-talk • main talk 14:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
Close rfp on phearson [edit]
I have been waiting for awhile for this to close so that I may begin editing again. Phearson (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
