Talk:James Webb Space Telescope moves to final orbit

Paywall?

@Cromium, NYT is paywalled right? 2006nishan178713^t@lk 04:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in most cases it is. However, it seems it does let you read one item for free each month, and it let Archive.org access the page yesterday. So, I’m hoping we can skip that rule on this occasion. [₂₄Cr][talk] 07:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure thing 2006nishan178713^t@lk 08:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cromium, Bddpaux: If you have the time, could you please check this article out? - Xbspiro (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Xbspiro, Cromium can't review it as @Cromium has a major contribution in its creation. See History 2006nishan178713^t@lk 16:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Bddpaux or @JJLiu112 can help? 2006nishan178713^t@lk 16:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly discourage using NYT. Please remove it. JJLiu112 (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed. We have enough sources as it is but I hope we can revisit the policy sometime this year. [₂₄Cr][talk] 17:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Cromium Can we remove the NYT source? 2006nishan178713^t@lk 08:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Also tagging Acagastya (talk · contribs) as he has been active not too long ago. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Acagastya 2006nishan178713^t@lk 05:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@2006nishan178713: You are right, I haven't checked page history, just pinged those I have seen to had been active in recent changes. - Xbspiro (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Cromium, 2006nishan178713: We do not use paywalled sources, and generally we avoid NYT because it is mostly paywalled. However, if one disables JavaScript, or uses something like [[w:w3m|]]/lynx, one could bypass the paywall. It is always a trouble, and while there are ways to get around, I would suggest, if the info is available elsewhere, opt for that. If not, and if the fact is important, well, add the source and the fact. If the reviewer can't access it, they will remove it.
•–• 07:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree 2006nishan178713^t@lk 07:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The article was not paywalled when I used it as a source, but it is now. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is a trial period or something like that. 2006nishan178713^t@lk 18:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4658874 [Not ready]

Revision 4658874 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NYT source. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Per talk. NYT source is against WN:Paywall. 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 4658874 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:40, 29 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: NYT source. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Per talk. NYT source is against WN:Paywall. 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.

I've replaced the New York Times source with three others. --Ixfd64 (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting Review

The NYT source has been replaced. You can review it now @JJLiu112. 2006nishan178713^t@lk 13:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Legislators

@2006nishan178713: @Ixfd64: Please indicate who the legislators are before I conduct my final review. --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@JJLiu112: I have added the name of the subcommittee that proposed the cancellation. I don’t think we will need specific names here. [₂₄Cr][talk] 19:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4659034 [Passed]

Revision 4659034 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Alise Fisher, Isabella Yan sources not needed. Please remove. 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 4659034 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Alise Fisher, Isabella Yan sources not needed. Please remove. 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.

Done, extraneous sources removed. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

While it turned out to be an okay article, what was the rationale behind publishing it stale? - Xbspiro (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I understand the information was relevant, as the telescope is currently orbiting. Additionally, while Wikinews regulation, there have been times where we’ve been a bit lax with staleness just because of inactivity; Israel opposition parties announce coalition, form new government was published after four days, for example. Particularly as it was relevant and, imo, significant (which I realise is subjective), I decided just to carry on with publishing anyways. JJLiu112 (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yep....while it can be dangerous (sort of), historically we've been known to wiggle just a pinch on defining staleness/freshness. It can be a slippery slope, but often the general value/merit of the article is considered. I say these things before I've even glanced at the article, though.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)