Talk:Former U.S. intelligence agent Tony Mendez, architect of 'Argo' rescue, dies at 78

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


Headline does a horrible job trying to say more than it should, but making no sense. (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Reads alright to me; only issue is that Argo may not be known to all. But 'Argo rescue' does imply a rescue known by that name, which is probably going to suffice for a headline... Better alternatives are welcome, naturally. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 15:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Like I said in the user history, BRS, the title is up for grabs. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
@Blood Red Sandman: CIA is a problem too. (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
How about moving background information about the movie to a lower section so the lede is free, and not confusing for the audience? It has more misses than hits. (talk) 23:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
WN:SG#Headlines suggests CIA is alright, with the following: "Avoid uncommon technical terms, and when referring to a country or organization, use its full name rather than acronym, unless the acronym is more common than the full name (ex: NASA, UK, AIDS) or length is prohibitive. In cases where using an acronym because length is prohibitive, spell the acronym out as soon as possible in the article body." At present, my struggle with "Argo rescue" is the inability to find a suitably succinct alternative for his biggest claim to fame for sticking into a headline. I'm not happy with a "least worst" option; neither am I coming up with anything better, frustratingly. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 23:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
It is an uncommon acronym which second and third world citizens would not get. (talk) 23:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
In this particular case I've substituted "US intelligence agent" for "CIA agent". I don't recall seeing a clear articulation of how to draw the line on reference-versus-recognition in headlines; it seems something we'd want to consider very carefully before offering a guideline on. --Pi zero (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
In the hectic last half hour of the review, I found I agreed with the argument that while the rescue belongs in the lede as it goes to the significance of Mendez (and thus, of the focal event), the 2012 movie isn't something Mendez did so plausibly doesn't contribute to Mendez's significance; but then, in considering the headline and concluding there was a compelling brevity consideration involved, I noted that without the mention of the 2012 movie in the lede, the name "Argo" in the headline doesn't get explained until well down in the article, which is not cataclysmic, but is less than ideal. --Pi zero (talk) 01:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4459906 [Passed][edit]