Talk:International Asteroid Warning Network issues alert on asteroid 2024 YR4 impact risk in 2032

Review of revision 4839064 [Passed]

Revision 4839064 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Thank you for your submission. I made several edits during the review process; please refer to the edit history for details. I corrected an error carried over from the NPR source, which misnamed the International Asteroid Warning Network as the International Warning Asteroid Network. I also revised the headline to use active voice and attribute action as recommended by our style guide WN:Style#headlines, and I softened the 'nuclear bomb' language to further ensure neutrality and avoid sensationalism as recommended by WN:Neutrality (an essay), WN:NPOV (policy). 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 4839064 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Thank you for your submission. I made several edits during the review process; please refer to the edit history for details. I corrected an error carried over from the NPR source, which misnamed the International Asteroid Warning Network as the International Warning Asteroid Network. I also revised the headline to use active voice and attribute action as recommended by our style guide WN:Style#headlines, and I softened the 'nuclear bomb' language to further ensure neutrality and avoid sensationalism as recommended by WN:Neutrality (an essay), WN:NPOV (policy). 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.

Everyone were doomed

I don’t wanna die Among Us city times (talk) 01:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Un-published as stale.

I had previously published this article. Within 6 minutes and before linking to it from our main page, I un-published it. I have now marked it as {{stale}}.

The alert issued by the IAWN was issued on January 29; ten days ago. On January 31, eight days ago, the likelihood of an impact was changed.[1]

Looking back, I now see that before I began the review process the lede and headline focused on the upgraded, 1% chance of impact, though it wasn't made clear this was a change to a previously published report from the IAWN. Regardless, both events, the publishing of the report and the change to the probability of impact are no longer WN:Fresh, therefore the story as currently written shouldn't be published.

It can possibly be brought up to date through a process we call WN:Gatwicking. Let me know if you have any questions about this process.

I apologize for the confusion. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:27, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: I found a new source or at least updated. Thanks. BigKrow (talk) 18:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

That's great! The article can be reviewed again if it is refocused on the event "A large asteroid dubbed 2024 YR4 now has a 2.2% chance of hitting the Earth on Dec. 22, 2032, according to NASA and the European Space Agency." I think that should be a relatively quick and easy job.

Remember to list sources newest to oldest in the Sources section and to format them appropriately, i.e., we don't list the time the article was published.

I'll watch for it to pop back into the review queue. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Two days left

@Lofi Gurl, BigKrow: just a heads up; there are still two days left before the most recent source goes stale. The article should be easy to gatwick and and then resubmit for review.

Because I published this article, it's now a flagged revision and any changes made have to be sighted. While editing the article at this point, you must view 'pending changes' at the top of the article page, to the right of "Collaboration" and "Read", in order to see your changes.

Again, sorry for the inconvenience. There appears to be no way for reviewers to un-flag a revision. An admin might be able to do it. But those are few and far between these days and it might take longer to work through than it would take to get the article published (again). —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 15:26, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I can't finish this unfortunately sorry @Michael.C.Wright: BigKrow (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Let me know what you think of what I did. I changed the focal point based on what I gathered from the new source. Lofi Gurl (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Nooooo 2600:387:15:1111:0:0:0:6 (talk) 02:41, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeeeeees! Lofi Gurl (talk) 02:45, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4839976 [Passed]

Revision 4839976 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I took the (bold?) step of placing this in the review queue and reviewing it. It was previously, erroneously published (was stale). It has since been updated with fresh news. There was a subsequent request for feedback by the original author on the talk page[2] , which I took as a green-light to review rather than ask the author to move it to the review queue and potentially lose more time. Thank you Lofi Gurl and BigKrow for sticking with this one and again collaborating on another published article! 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 4839976 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:24, 14 February 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I took the (bold?) step of placing this in the review queue and reviewing it. It was previously, erroneously published (was stale). It has since been updated with fresh news. There was a subsequent request for feedback by the original author on the talk page[3] , which I took as a green-light to review rather than ask the author to move it to the review queue and potentially lose more time. Thank you Lofi Gurl and BigKrow for sticking with this one and again collaborating on another published article! 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.

Thank you for publishing. BigKrow (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC) and thnx Lofi Gurl.

Good stuff, good work everyone! Lofi Gurl (talk) 22:33, 14 February 2025 (UTC)