Talk:Artist who changed Hollywood sign to 'Hollyweed' surrenders to authorities

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Non English sources[edit]

The article is translated from Portuguese language and uses Portuguese sources. I have added two English sources at the end which can verify the entire article, if the reviewer decides to drop the non-English source.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 21:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4278255 [Passed][edit]

US$1000 to $1,000[edit]

@Blood Red Sandman: Mentioning "US$" and "," can cause confusion to some readers. In the article about Yahoo!, News.com.au — which was used as a source, in the headlines mentioned $6.5billion acquisition. It was surprising since 1 billion accounts were hacked, which should have decreased the value initially decided as 4.83 billion. $6.5billion is in AUD, and they mention US$ in their article. Even the the article was about US companies, they first tell in AUD. (Of course; it is Australian company). So I think it won't cause any harm and we will be on the safer side to mention US$. Secondly, European countries like Spain has a different meaning of ",". 13.250 for them is Thirteen thousand and two fifty while 9,210 is nine point two one for them. So, I think we should drop the ",".
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 16:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@AGastya: If you feel these changes are reasonable and should be done, I recommend you make the edits to the article, thus submitting them for review. --Pi zero (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
(didn't actually ping me for some reason) WN:SG to my own surprise doesn't reflect a conversation I recall some years prior to the effect spelling out US, AU etc in articles where it can only be one currency was redundant. It does address the point about commas, however.
The other example doesn't match this, for the very reasons you describe; News.com.au has reason to be using different currencies, and is (or ought to be) clarifying them.
Ultimately I agree with PiZ; these aren't major points. Pinging one specific reviewer about them is only going to risk delay when the edits could just be made yourself; I am only just back online now. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 21:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
I had noticed the change while the article was under review. I did not find you on IRC so I thought to left a message here. But my internet connection was slow that time and I was able to place the message but it was late.
Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 03:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Ouch. That's some nasty connection speeds. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 12:44, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Last paragraph[edit]

{{editprotected}}

"On November 9, legislators voted in favor of a ballot for legalising recreational use of cannabis in California for the age group of 21 and above. The law legalising recreational cannabis is due to come into effect in 2018."

From what I understand of the law, the California Legislature itself didn't pass the law. It was passed by voter initiative, a sort of direct democracy California has which allows the electorate to submit petitions to call a referendum for particular proposals. It isn't exactly correct to say it was the legislators who passed the law. I think the law took immediate effect as well, but sales are not yet permitted. I do wish I had gotten the chance to take a picture of the sign, but oh well. —mikemoral (talk) 09:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Digging into the sources on the prior article, it looks like you may be right; while not said explicitly, on careful re-reading it is very strongly implied. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 12:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
A late reply, but a quick googling shows that it was an initiative measure, so the legislators didn't have a say in the law. Ballotpedia says the possession of cannabis became immediately legal, but sales and taxation provisions of the law take effect in 2018. I'm not sure if this really requires a correction though. —mikemoral (talk) 08:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm marking this section, so we don't lose track of it while we're considering whether it calls for a correction. --Pi zero (talk) 13:39, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps revising the text to "Voters approved a ballot proposition legalizing recreational cannabis for adults age 21 and over on November 9, but non-medical cannabis sales are not allowed until 2018" based on this information. It would more accurate, although that source would probably need to be added to the sources list. —mikemoral (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
This would be a {{correction}}, since it's more than 24 hours post-publish. --Pi zero (talk) 00:49, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
It appears to me the edit to this article at the time was sufficient to avoid a {{correction}} here, and I've (tentatively) disabled the {{editprotected}} tag above. I've proposed a {{correction}} to the earlier article. --Pi zero (talk) 01:11, 22 January 2017 (UTC)