Talk:2025 Queens World Film Festival features filmmakers breakfast and ceremony honoring Warrington Hudlin

Original Reporting notes

I have audio transcripts of the event which I have been using to transcribe the quotes as well as confirm the order of what happened. I was also at the event. Tduk (talk) 04:20, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

I also attended the breakfast and Nov 8 and recorded audio. Tduk (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

To state a few obvious bits

(I'm aware this is still under development). Look carefully at the first couple of paragraphs. Time, email, before the event etc. etc. -- that stuff is a bit crufty. That needs to be tightened up -- quick, tight, clear journalistic language. "We did this. He did that. The Mayor said this. A guy asked, bla-bla-bla. The sky was clear." You get the idea.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I see what you mean, I tried to uncruft it; I find that if I read it the next day, it is indeed obvious what to do. I'm not sure if there could be more done towards the end yet, but I think it's quite a bit tigher; what do you think? Tduk (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Review vs. abandoned

This article was tagged, incorrectly in my opinion, as "abandoned". The article had been submitted for review and had not yet received a review. We need to keep articles in "review" status until a reviewer actually gets around to reviewing it. If the reviewer decides to pronounce an article stale because neither that reviewer nor their fellow reviewers had taken the time to review the article while it was still "fresh", I think that the reviewer needs to take responsibility for that as being a problem. There aren't that many articles in the review queue. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I am unclear with what you mean by 'take responsibility'. Can you clarify?-Bddpaux (talk) 13:35, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

@Metropolitan90 do you care to respond? Tduk (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

What I'm thinking of is that Tduk submitted this article for review on October 21, and no reviewer did anything with the page for nine days until Bddpaux tagged the article as "abandoned". Even if the result would inevitably be that the article would not achieve publication, I think it might help for reviewers to take a different attitude toward article writers. Tagging the article as "abandoned" implies that Tduk neglected the article by failing to edit it, whereas what actually happened was that the reviewers, collectively, never got around to reviewing it in time. This isn't the fault of any one reviewer, but it still happened that way. If the article had received a {{Peer reviewed}} template with "Newsworthy" marked as "Unfortunately, this article is no longer newsworthy because no reviewer could review it before time ran out for it to become stale", that would not resolve everything that is problematic here, but it would show a more respectful attitude toward article writers. To emphasize -- the reason the article went stale was that no reviewer took the time to review it timely, not because Tduk submitted it late. (As Tduk mentions elsewhere on this page, WN:ORIGINALREPORTING says, "Exclusive content has the potential to extend our freshness horizon by days or even weeks, depending on the nature of the original material." And that's yet a separate issue here.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, I have been waiting for a review of this for a while, and don't really understand what's going on. I agree with you about reviewer responsibility, but none of the reviewers seem to agree on this. Tduk (talk) 13:55, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

I agree with Metropolitan90's remarks and will consider that in the future. In terms of our 'flow' here, it is probably smartest to conduct a review, mark it as stale, which would then prompt (hopefully) someone to gatwick the article. The MASSIVE kerfuffle here is Tduk (seemingly) believes that freshness works like a magic wand, giving loads of time for any article to be published because some interview stuff is woven into it -- that is wrong. In VERY SPECIAL instances, we can certainly teeter outside the 7 days on certain interviews -- but the circumstances, etc. must allow that. I value contributions here. This place does good things. But (and I fear this concept is being eroded aggressively around here) -- this is a NEWS ORGANIZATION and we must maintain credible journalistic standards. Or, to quote the above statement: "And that's a yet a separate issue here." --Bddpaux (talk) 15:13, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

It would be nice if all articles that go stale could be gatwicked, but in some, or perhaps many cases, that isn't necessarily possible. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4893974 [Not ready]

Revision 4893974 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Stale Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: see comments Comments by reviewer: The 2nd paragraph is very odd in its structure -- gets into needless detail about minute stuff. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4893974 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:36, 2 November 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Stale Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: see comments Comments by reviewer: The 2nd paragraph is very odd in its structure -- gets into needless detail about minute stuff. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

I think I made the changes you were requesting. I believe this article is still fresh, per WN:ORIGINALREPORTING, "Original material can also enhance freshness. Exclusive content has the potential to extend our freshness horizon by days or even weeks, depending on the nature of the original material. ". Tduk (talk) 14:52, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

There is absolutely NOTHING you've done (in the past 96 hours) to change/alter/enhance the freshness of this article. There is not a shred of anything that would extend the freshness of this article. Your article is 99.9% about the event itself. That event has come and gone.The event (on which you are reporting) happened well over 3 weeks ago. You did (thank you) tighten up the language in the 2nd paragraph, not quite enough, but I see the effort. This article is stale. You may choose to move it over to a Sandbox (or what have you). It is time to re-focus and move on.--Bddpaux (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Why are you ignoring the policy at WN:ORIGINALREPORTING? You are using all caps in saying I have done no work to improve the freshness, yet I explicit stated that according to policy and @Michael.C.Wright that it is still fresh. Tduk (talk) 17:07, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I just saw this comment. Please link to the conversation where I said 'it is still fresh.'Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 19:17, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

@Bddpaux deleted the talk page where I believe you led me to believe original reporting was still fresh beyond two weeks. Tduk (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4894903 [Not ready]

Revision 4894903 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Stale Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This article is stale. The event happened nearly 3 weeks ago. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4894903 of this article has been reviewed by Bddpaux (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:33, 2 November 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Stale Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: This article is stale. The event happened nearly 3 weeks ago. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

BigKrow's revert notwithstanding, I believe some source material here has potential. Gatwicking won't be easy, but I see some potential carve out material here for a fresher article.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:29, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• I am currently updating it from an event that happened just today, as part of the ongoing festival. I don't think this should be necessary and it makes for a confusing article but I think it at least justifies this "freshness" angle. Tduk (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
• I am going to try to help gatwick this with you. The event running through Nov 16 will help. I am just working on some loose ideas at this point to help re-focus. The presser must now be a very small part of things. We can make something work. —Bddpaux (talk) 22:04, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  The presser was still the major award ceremony honoring Hudlin, but I've changed the topic. If you do so many edits who will review it? I don't see the relevance of the SAG link, am I missing something? I think the paragraphs beginning with "Cato next" and "After Hudlin" could be removed to tighen focus if you think it's needed. I can make that change. Tduk (talk) 22:07, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

  The breakfast thing is a good change. Let me give it a think.—Bddpaux (talk) 02:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

  I think the photojournalism here is also exclusive and valuable. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:21, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Yes, the photos are excellent. I am optimistic about this article's chances of getting published. Also, I think it can happen with actually very little gatwicking. It needs a little tightening up in a few places to keep a focus on the correct focal event. In about the 2nd paragraph (or so), a hard statement about (e.g.) "The festival started on bla and runs through bla." could help a lot on that. I am just tired today and will be extremely busy with work this week.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

For a hot minute, I thought I could work some magic that would allow me enough margin to still review -- but I think that option is out at this point. Taking action to stringently focus this, which will probably require getting rid of some stuff. When in doubt: go simpler!--Bddpaux (talk) 16:44, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

Question: Were all films screened at the same location?--Bddpaux (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The festival is not done yet, and I'm not sure if I understand the question. There are several theaters in use. Also, I don't understand why you added this [1] which as far as I can tell is just random, what am I missing? Tduk (talk) 19:22, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

The article states "The Queens World Film Festival ran from November 6th - 9th..." Is that correct? You stated above, on the tenth, it is not done yet. The website states it is 17 days and there is a schedule that shows events form Nov. 5 - 16.[2] That should be nailed down so that our article is accurate.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:11, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I did not add that text, and it was indeed incorrect. Tagging @Michael.C.Wright to see if the other concerns are addressed. Tduk (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I would say the neutrality issues have improved and I'm not going to quibble over the "this reporter observed..." recommendation.

At a quick glance, there are still style guide issues.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 19:21, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what style guide issues you mean; this article has been editing by two other more experienced wikinews editors than I who, I assume, would have caught them better than I could. Could you be more specific? Tduk (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright Tduk (talk) 12:14, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I was hoping you’d take the initiative to review your own article against our style guide and policies before submission. Doing so builds familiarity and helps ensure it’s close to publishable and speeds up the whole process.

Relying on others to catch issues for you slows the process and contributes to our low publication rate. If everyone waits for a reviewer to clean up their work, we won’t move forward.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:45, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

I did do so, that is why I asked for clarification. I was trying to say that they did not see any issues in addition to the fact that I didn't see any issues - without knowing in any way what you mean, having written a lot of it myself, and having had others make changes to the article which somewhat confused me as well, I'm saying that having reviewed the article this many times myself, I'm probably not going to immediately see any new issues, and did not when I did actually review the whole thing again at your request. "style guide issues" is quite vague, isn't it? Tduk (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2025 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────┘
I’ll leave it at that. My earlier note was meant to encourage another careful self-check against the style guide rather than open a detailed debate over phrasing. At this stage, it’s best to focus on tightening prose, verifying details, and aligning the article with all policies and guidelines so it’s more ready if and when you decide to resubmit it for review. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 00:24, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

This back and forth is not constructive and only serves to make the content more stale. Are you interested in publishing this or not? @Bddpaux @Sheminghui.WU do you have any interest in this? Tduk (talk) 01:03, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

It might be helpful for you to explain why @Asked42's clean-up was not adequate as well. Tduk (talk) 01:04, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

As I said previously, I’ll leave it at that. You’re free to resubmit it for review at any time, or let someone else take over.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 01:11, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Speaking from an individual case, an article like this should have been published long ago. In our recent reform discussions, we should consider what, at the structural level, has prevented such an article from being published. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

I fully agree, and I think I did a decent job of explaining that (roughly 3 times, if memory serves). Point of fact: The very first iteration of this was built heavily around the presser event that happened in mid-October. That was undeniably the focal event and a massive chunk of the writing was focused on that, with some interviews mixed in. I explained to Tduk rather clearly all of that. But, he continued (continues??) to miss that point -- seemingly thinking that an interview in an article sprinkles some level of fairy dust on things in terms of freshness -- it does not. To then try to publish the prior article, built around said framework was not tenable. THEN, the article pivoted (with various inputs) to focus on the festival as a whole (which ran for a number of days). Under such circumstances (I'm pretty sure the festival had just wrapped up around the time the article was published), the freshness was not such a major issue. We can (and have and will continue) to give wiggle room on the 7-day requirement with interviews. But (for what I hope is the last time): when the article's focal event is AN EVENT, an interview DOES NOT sprinkle magic fairy dust all over things -- it doesn't and it never has around here.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:11, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

What we need is newsworthness, not timeliness. I agree with you; interviews aren't magic, but they certainly have value. According to my search, "National Magic week is traditionally the last 7 days of October (October 25th-31st)," so your interview with the magician is outdated and has never refocused on anything, and it does not sprinkle magic fairy dust all over things. Fortunately, the article didn't mention anything about Magic Week. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 22:19, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

I feel like the two different reviewers involved in this have very different interpretations of what needs to be done, and I don't feel like it's constructive for me to continue this. If anyone wants to submit this for review (@Sheminghui.WU @Asked42) and thinks it will pass as is, feel free. Tduk (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2025 (UTC)

Regarding mine and Michael's so-called interpretations of things (and your interpretations of those interpretations): You are mistaken. I fully support his action to publish this article. Things were re-focused properly. The fact that your fragmentary efforts to do a bit of refreshing largely did not pass muster (plus a seeming belief that an interview is a type of light saber one can use to ward off staleness) is zero evidence of a difference in mine and his interpretations.--Bddpaux (talk) 15:17, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

That isn't what I meant to say at all, and I have no interest in continuing these discussions further as your language is too charged. I will mention though that we (I and other editors) did have to spend time dealing with factual inaccuracies you introduced into the article. None of my experience here shows any semblance of organization. Tduk (talk) 15:32, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4925955 [Not ready]

Revision 4925955 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See comments below Style: Not ready: See comments below Comments by reviewer: While the article is largely factual, a few statements should be reframed to maintain neutral tone and clarify observation. For example, “The audience laughed at jokes in the film, cheered at the end, and clapped through the whole end credits” implies evaluation and can instead be written as “This reporter observed the audience laughing and applauding through the end credits.” Similarly, “Numerous films were screened during the festival’s run” and “a special ‘Filmmaker’s Breakfast’ was held” use subjective wording that can be replaced with neutral descriptions. Adding context about the festival’s overall scope would also improve balance, as the current version focuses mainly on the breakfast and award ceremony. The article should also conform to the style guide by avoiding ordinal indicators in dates (use “November 6” instead of “November 6th”), italicizing titles of works such as *The Caravan*, and properly formatting sources and attributions to align with Wikinews conventions. For my review standards and conduct, see: my review standards and conduct. Unless I place {{Under review}} on an article, I claim no exclusive rights to review or re-review an article. All reviewers are welcome to step in and collaborate to get the article ready for publication. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 4925955 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 18:05, 11 November 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: See comments below Style: Not ready: See comments below Comments by reviewer: While the article is largely factual, a few statements should be reframed to maintain neutral tone and clarify observation. For example, “The audience laughed at jokes in the film, cheered at the end, and clapped through the whole end credits” implies evaluation and can instead be written as “This reporter observed the audience laughing and applauding through the end credits.” Similarly, “Numerous films were screened during the festival’s run” and “a special ‘Filmmaker’s Breakfast’ was held” use subjective wording that can be replaced with neutral descriptions. Adding context about the festival’s overall scope would also improve balance, as the current version focuses mainly on the breakfast and award ceremony. The article should also conform to the style guide by avoiding ordinal indicators in dates (use “November 6” instead of “November 6th”), italicizing titles of works such as *The Caravan*, and properly formatting sources and attributions to align with Wikinews conventions. For my review standards and conduct, see: my review standards and conduct. Unless I place {{Under review}} on an article, I claim no exclusive rights to review or re-review an article. All reviewers are welcome to step in and collaborate to get the article ready for publication. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

I can see that some changes were made since I wrote this article by others that I'll have to adjust, thanks. I don't agree with the phrasing "this reporter observed" though, I think it distracts from the content. The reason the article focuses on those two things (breakfast and awards) was because of forced gatwicking because of a late review; these should be two separate articles in my opinion, and indeed they are on zh.wikinews. I will not further gatwick this article. I will make the requested changes though. Tduk (talk) 19:10, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Personally, I believe that a reporter's firsthand observations can be trusted through visual materials. Therefore, not being overly biased in language and using slightly "rhetorical" descriptions of scenes aligns with our principles. ~ Sheminghui.WU (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4927544 [Passed]

Revision 4927544 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As part of the review process, a series of minor but detailed copyedits were made to bring the article into compliance with the Wikinews Style Guide. These included normalizing punctuation to American style for consistency, correcting links that led to disambiguation pages, fixing spelling and capitalization, italicizing titles of works, and removing unnecessary markup such as sic and ordinals. The reviewer also standardized source formatting, adding archive URLs, clarifying access dates, etc. See the edit history for full details. WN:Freshness allows reviewers to extend the usual freshness window by days or even weeks when assessing articles based on original reporting. The guideline does not specify an exact limit or define which types of original reporting qualify, leaving such determinations to the reviewer’s discretion in light of the material’s nature and news value. As part of the review process, the article’s publication was delayed in part by an extended talk-page discussion about unaddressed style-guide issues. Specific feedback had already identified clear items to correct — removing ordinal indicators from dates (e.g., “November 6” instead of “November 6th”), italicizing titles of works such as The Caravan. Rather than completing these straightforward fixes, the discussion shifted toward who bore responsibility for identifying and resolving them. For the health of the project, contributors are encouraged to resolve known style and policy issues before submitting for review. Articles should be as close to publishable as possible on submission; debating responsibility for corrections slows publication, risks staleness, and can discourage participation. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4927544 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:33, 15 November 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As part of the review process, a series of minor but detailed copyedits were made to bring the article into compliance with the Wikinews Style Guide. These included normalizing punctuation to American style for consistency, correcting links that led to disambiguation pages, fixing spelling and capitalization, italicizing titles of works, and removing unnecessary markup such as sic and ordinals. The reviewer also standardized source formatting, adding archive URLs, clarifying access dates, etc. See the edit history for full details. WN:Freshness allows reviewers to extend the usual freshness window by days or even weeks when assessing articles based on original reporting. The guideline does not specify an exact limit or define which types of original reporting qualify, leaving such determinations to the reviewer’s discretion in light of the material’s nature and news value. As part of the review process, the article’s publication was delayed in part by an extended talk-page discussion about unaddressed style-guide issues. Specific feedback had already identified clear items to correct — removing ordinal indicators from dates (e.g., “November 6” instead of “November 6th”), italicizing titles of works such as The Caravan. Rather than completing these straightforward fixes, the discussion shifted toward who bore responsibility for identifying and resolving them. For the health of the project, contributors are encouraged to resolve known style and policy issues before submitting for review. Articles should be as close to publishable as possible on submission; debating responsibility for corrections slows publication, risks staleness, and can discourage participation. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.