Talk:Bangladesh President-elect meets outgoing president Hamid at Bangabhaban

Image

Image is likely a copy-vio. I nominated it for speedy on Commons. SVTCobra 12:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that's odd, we must remove it for now and replace with the parliament's picture where the election takes place. M:DRC (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

File:President-elect Shahabuddin Chuppu with family in Bangabhaban with President Abdul Hamid and Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina (cropped).jpg

I cropped it at Commons. Not the best quality though. Maybe we should stick with the Parliament image?

Heavy Water (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if that image is really CC0. I couldn't find any other images on Commons from pressinform.gov.bd nor could I find copyright information on the website. Often when somebody enters the news, there can be many people uploading files and putting the wrong license on the files. SVTCobra 21:16, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there are always some people ignoring the "Release rights" section of the Upload Wizard and using CC-BY-4.0. The closest thing bangladesh.gov.bd has to a copyright license is a statement that, "Permission is granted to all user of this website to print all the information available in the websites without any deletion, addition or modification. This permission to print does not extend to any material on this website or any website to or from which this website is linked which is the copyright of any party other than the Government of Bangladesh."

This seems to imply that images are not free-use. Heavy Water (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4710021 [Not ready]

Revision 4710021 of this article has been reviewed by Chaetodipus (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 06:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm sorry to say this falls just out of freshness. There doesn't seem to be much English-language coverage on this, but on Tuesday Chuppu met with the incumbent which could be included to bring this back into the freshness threshold. Otherwise everything else looks fine. 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 4710021 of this article has been reviewed by Chaetodipus (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 06:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm sorry to say this falls just out of freshness. There doesn't seem to be much English-language coverage on this, but on Tuesday Chuppu met with the incumbent which could be included to bring this back into the freshness threshold. Otherwise everything else looks fine. 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.

Wow! @Chaetodipus:, that is good review. I will surely update the event and submit for reviewing.--M:DRC (talk) 07:47, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chaetodipus: Actually, because of the staleness alteration adopted in July, articles go stale after 5-7 days (there was supposed to be a vote in October to make it permanent or not, but that never happened). What I'm more concerned about is that the published version only has one source for its focal event. That might be grounds for retraction; I can add this source in the meanwhile. --Heavy Water (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm hesitant to fully retract this. I did blunder in not ensuring there was a second source corroborating information about the meeting. Perhaps a correction note is more appropriate along the lines of "At the time of publication, this article did not meet the guidelines Wikinews uses for sourcing and verifying its information. This has since been corrected." Given though that the information was verifiable in the end, it may not be totally necessary. —chaetodipus (talk · contribs) 07:24, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4710051 [Passed]

Revision 4710051 of this article has been reviewed by Chaetodipus (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Please take care to not copy-paste sentences directly from the source; material should be in your own words. I appreciate you taking the time to add to the article to bring it back into freshness, thank you! 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 4710051 of this article has been reviewed by Chaetodipus (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:40, 17 February 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Please take care to not copy-paste sentences directly from the source; material should be in your own words. I appreciate you taking the time to add to the article to bring it back into freshness, thank you! 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.