Talk:Hundreds arrested for 'dark web' child porn by international task force

Notes for the reviewer

• I relied as much on the primary sources as the secondary sources
• I hate the use of 38 countries without the full list, but that's what we have. However, the image (screenshot) lists a few more countries. Endorsed by the NCA is it cause enough to add Finland, France, Hungary and more? Since it is by the task force, is it valid as a source?

Cheers, --SVTCobra 21:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Edit request - disambiguation

@Pi zero: since this is under review, making the request here - please dab New York to New York State. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 01:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4522847 [Passed]

Revision 4522847 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Struggled with "The investigation and arrests began in 2018." Which investigation? Afaict, the site was discovered by law enforcement while investigating something in 2017, the March 2018 action was a result of that, and after the equipment was seized in March 2018 they extracted from it leads distributed to 38 countries. Since adding stuff uses up reviewers' leeway especially fast, and I didn't want to cut the only thing in the lede that indicated this had been going on for a while, I puzzled over how to make a minimal change that would reconcile this complicated tangle of factors. (I'm reasonably satisfied with the fix.) 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 4522847 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:10, 17 October 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Struggled with "The investigation and arrests began in 2018." Which investigation? Afaict, the site was discovered by law enforcement while investigating something in 2017, the March 2018 action was a result of that, and after the equipment was seized in March 2018 they extracted from it leads distributed to 38 countries. Since adding stuff uses up reviewers' leeway especially fast, and I didn't want to cut the only thing in the lede that indicated this had been going on for a while, I puzzled over how to make a minimal change that would reconcile this complicated tangle of factors. (I'm reasonably satisfied with the fix.) 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.

Main page image

@Pi zero: is it appropriate to use File:Seized Korean porn site screenshot as per NCA.jpg on the main page? Wikinews:Fair use doesn't explain the policy about the main page, but I know on enwiki its not allowed; technically, the main page is in the "main article namespace", but it isn't an article. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:26, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't SVTCobra saying something about thumbnails? --Pi zero (talk) 04:29, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

There it isn't a thumbnail, and its the main page (most highly viewed) - the image doesn't even link to the source! --DannyS712 (talk) 04:36, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

I am aware of the policy of which Danny speaks. mikemoral has pointed it out in the past. Now I don't know what the framers of that policy had in mind when they wrote it. Did they imagine just an image by itself which linked to the article? I could see that as being problematic. However, I think one can easily argue that our abstract is in effect a mini article for which it is fair-use to illustrate. I am literally looking at my Google news feed right now and that same image is being used. And, DannyS712, we have a prominent "Image credit" link, something which Google and countless other sites don't even bother with. So is it against policy? Yes. Is it a violation of copyright law? No, not in the United States where news reporting is viewed very favorably when it comes to fair-use. --SVTCobra 18:16, 17 October 2019 (UTC)