Talk:Fourth U.S. state governor orders net neutrality in government contracts

Thoughts

• What actually just happened? If only one of these four just happened, that should be the WN:focus. That doesn't necessarily mean the others don't get mentioned at all in the headline; one might for example have something like "x because fourth state to y"; and it certainly doesn't prevent telling about the others in the body of the article (with perhaps very, very succinct mentions in the lede). But the focus needs to be specific.

Vermont just happened, as indicated in the first sentence. I will expand. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Do not use two-letter state initialisms in a headline. If there were four different states that wanted naming in the headline, you'd have to either bite the bullet by having a really long headline, or find a way to just make it lots shorter (such as "four US states"). Though it seems likely, from the preceding, you'll be wanting to emphasize one of the four more than the others anyway.

I will change the title to "Vermont becomes the fourth US state to mandate net neutrality" DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• In the current draft, the lede is too long.

OK. DavidMCEddy (talk) 04:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

• Remember, two mutually independent trust-worthy sources corroborating the focus.

Provided. I will add <!--comments--> explaining that.

--Pi zero (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4384554 [Not ready]

Revision 4384554 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: This might sound too harsh not not ready the article, but the article style does not follow SG. Please wikilink the keywords, rename the article so te the global audience understands meaning of MT, NY, NJ, and VT. For the record, I do not know what they stand for. Make use of {{source}} to cite the sources. Use an infobox. 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 4384554 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: This might sound too harsh not not ready the article, but the article style does not follow SG. Please wikilink the keywords, rename the article so te the global audience understands meaning of MT, NY, NJ, and VT. For the record, I do not know what they stand for. Make use of {{source}} to cite the sources. Use an infobox. 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.

Thanks for the review.

The article has been renamed, and the two-letter abbreviations for US states have been eliminated. (I had earlier proposed a new title and said I would change it, then forgot. Someone else actually did it. Thanks to that person.)

Are there now appropriate wikilinks?

I earlier had mixed {{source}} with {{Citation ...}}. I think I've fixed all those problems. Or are you referring to something else?

What infobox do you suggest? I first tried {{Vermont infobox}} following the example of {{california infobox}} in United States: Berkeley, California declares itself a sanctuary city for recreational cannabis: However, {{Vermont infobox}} generated an error: "Template:Vermont infobox". So I switched to using a photo of the Governor. DavidMCEddy (talk) 13:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

[[Template:Infobox]] provided example {{infobox|Tuvalu}}. I therefore tried {{infobox|Vermont}}. This generated "Warning: This page calls Template:Infobox which causes a template loop (an infinite recursive call)."

What would you like on this? Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Use {{Vermont}}. It uses {{infobox}} under the hood (though some state infoboxen haven't been updated yet to do so). Ignore the warning message; I'm afraid I've lost all respect for those warning messages, which afaict are blatantly lying in order to try to bully people into following the Foundation's ill-conceived wishes for the future of the sisterhood. --Pi zero (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. What else needs to happen? DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

(Well, it would help if I could split myself into about six people, to do many things at once.) Review needs to happen; either it's okay, and review is needed to confirm that and publish, or there's a problem and review is needed to determine what that is. --Pi zero (talk) 00:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Might it help if I comment on the 5 items "Not reviewed" in the above box?

* Copyright: All the text is original with me, except for what is identified as quotes.

* Newsworthiness: This is a hot topic with repercussions from sea to shining sea in the US -- and probably beyond -- as can be established by a brief review of the Repeal section of the Wikipedia article on w:Net neutrality in the United States: Lots of recent activity is summarized there.

* Verifiability: Six of the eight bullets in the "Sources" section have at least two credible citations. This includes the first one on Vermont, the official theme that introduces this article.

• • • The "Fight for the Future" bullet in the "Sources" includes "{{{date}}}". I do not understand that. That source is a web page that seems to be updated regularly and does not carry a date that I've seen. I could probably write code to scrape the html, etc., from that link and compare it with what I got 24 hours earlier. I've not done that, though I have done a manual comparison and found differences.

* Style. I cannot comment on this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: I can't read the sources section. It's (apologies) a mess. The {{source}} template is designed to be called once per bullet in a bulleted list; newest to oldest. As it is, I can't even see where one source citation ends and another begins, or even tell how many sources there actually are. If I were going to try to review this, atm I'd have to start by expending a bunch of effort trying to untangle the sources section. (Some reviewers would simply not-ready it on that.) I suspect there are other problems with the citations beyond that, but can't even tell that until after the basic list is straightened out. --Pi zero (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Pi zero: Please excuse. I've reorganized it as I think you want with one reference per bullet with the newest at the top of the list. (I had previously organized it by the main facts I thought someone like you would want to check, with in most cases two separate references for each fact. For example, for the executive orders I provided both the executive order and a news report about it.) DavidMCEddy (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Thx. I figured it was well meant, and I appreciate that there's a challenge there from conflicting things one wants from the list arrangement. But, bureaucratic rules aside (note the sixth of George Orwell's tips quoted in the style guide), the {{source}} citations really aren't designed to be readable without linebreaks between them. --Pi zero (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4384926 [Not ready]

Revision 4384926 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Wikipedia cannot be a source. It is inherently untrustworthy (and admits to being so, not that failure to admit the problem would make it go away). Also note that our licenses are incompatible, so that using text here that's copied from Wikipedia is a violation of the copyright held by the Wikipedian authors (even if it is credited). If you see information (as opposed to verbatim text) on Wikipedia that you would like to use on Wikinews, you have to find it somewhere else and use that as a source. If Wikipedia cites a source that we would consider trustworthy, and that cited source really does verify the information, then that source can be used for the information here; but whether Wikipedia cites such a source or not, the fact that Wikipedia says it does not in any way contribute to verifying it. 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 4384926 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 13:51, 18 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Wikipedia cannot be a source. It is inherently untrustworthy (and admits to being so, not that failure to admit the problem would make it go away). Also note that our licenses are incompatible, so that using text here that's copied from Wikipedia is a violation of the copyright held by the Wikipedian authors (even if it is credited). If you see information (as opposed to verbatim text) on Wikipedia that you would like to use on Wikinews, you have to find it somewhere else and use that as a source. If Wikipedia cites a source that we would consider trustworthy, and that cited source really does verify the information, then that source can be used for the information here; but whether Wikipedia cites such a source or not, the fact that Wikipedia says it does not in any way contribute to verifying it. 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.

@DavidMCEddy: We're running out of time, on this. (About ten hours, I think; and me with a bunch of snow from last night to deal with...) --Pi zero (talk) 13:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

I deleted Wikipedia as a source. DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

new typo

@Pi zero: You just inserted "In additio to these": This includes an obvious typo. Your surely intended "In addition to these". Thanks for your efforts. DavidMCEddy (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Review of revision 4385074 [Passed]

Revision 4385074 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I've had to omit some formatting tasks — notably, for the source citations, though I did a few sporadically — or I'd not have come close to finishing in time. (The formatting tasks I didn't do could, in principle, be done even after archiving as they aren't substantive.) I also cut a few small points here and there on grounds that further efforts to verify them would, again, take time we didn't have; notably, I was unable to find 29 bills in the FFTF source. 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 4385074 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:35, 18 February 2018 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I've had to omit some formatting tasks — notably, for the source citations, though I did a few sporadically — or I'd not have come close to finishing in time. (The formatting tasks I didn't do could, in principle, be done even after archiving as they aren't substantive.) I also cut a few small points here and there on grounds that further efforts to verify them would, again, take time we didn't have; notably, I was unable to find 29 bills in the FFTF source. 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.

Yes: The 28 bills are not easy to identify in that FTFF source. That takes effort -- and the number could have grown since I took my snapshot.

Is there something you'd like me to do? I'm not clear on the formatting standard you want. I've seen some of the changes you've made, but I don't know what else you'd like done. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:49, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, our {{source}} template is much simpler than its Wikipedian equivalent; for most purposes there are just five fields — url, title, author, pub, date. All except author should always be used; author is used for named reporters, and for syndicate. A field like the "quote" thing doesn't actually do any harm; it doesn't do anything at all, as the template doesn't use it. --Pi zero (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

OK. I can try to reformat references following your lead -- and deleting the text introduction, e.g., New Jersey-report (February 5, 2018).

Will Wikinews accept citations in the Wikicite portion of Wikidata? I think Wikinews should support that. Then people need to learn only one citation format that can be used for any Wikimedia project in any language. Twenty years ago, a friend moved from the US to Switzerland. He bought a step-down transformer to convert the 220 volt power to match the 110 required by his TV, but it got fried anyway, because the current was 50 Hz, not 60 as in the US.

Thanks for your work on this. DavidMCEddy (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

We don't take anything from Wikidata.

Our citation template device is customized to our needs. If one wants to mitigate the problem of different interfaces on different projects, I maintain one should do it by nurturing customization, making it easier to deal with, rather than by promoting standardization. Standardization as a movement is opposed to the nature of wikis, which should exalt human customization. --Pi zero (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Relevance of "Embassy of the United States, Ottawa"?

@SVTCobra: Why are you proposing to add {{Image|{{w|Embassy of the United States, Ottawa}}}} to the caption under the photo of Vermont Governor Phil Scott? Your suggestion to move [[File:Phil Scott 2017.jpg|thumb|Vermont Governor Phil Scott]] to the left with [[File:Phil Scott 2017.jpg|thumb|left|Vermont Governor Phil Scott]] makes sense, but I don't understand your attempted change to the caption. I don't see the relevance -- and it's not displaying properly, even if it were relevant.  ????DavidMCEddy (talk) 14:01, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Image credit. THat's apparently where the pic originally came from. Yngvadottir (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

We typically credit images to their author. And it is displaying in a smaller font as intended. See this article for another example of how we use {{image}}. Cheers, --SVTCobra 14:37, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks. DavidMCEddy (talk) 15:16, 19 February 2018 (UTC)