Talk:Lost 52 Project announces discovery of wrecked sub near Okinawa

headline

We'll need to specify "Okinawa, Japan", for our international readership. --Pi zero (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

(done.) --Pi zero (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to change it back or anything, but I think of "Okinawa" the way I think of "Texas" or "California" or "Normandy." It's famous enough and its name is distinctive enough that people have heard of it and have an idea of what country it's in. Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Kind of marginal, I agree; touch call which side of the line it comes down on. --Pi zero (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

With all this lack of strong feelings, I've consulted an off-project third party, whose instinct was to leave off "Japan" in the headline. --Pi zero (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Ooooooh, third-party opinion from a mystery commentator! Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I consult unabridged dictionaries, too (though I then decide for myself whether I agree with them). --Pi zero (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Okinawa

I was thinking of setting up a category for Okinawa, but I see there are four different meanings for "Okinawa" (city, island, island group, prefecture) and the first step would be to sort out which of the articles in our archives refer to which of those. Which is more involved than I want to get into while a review is underway. --Pi zero (talk) 15:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4528435 [Not ready]

Revision 4528435 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There is a problem with the choice of focal event here. The headline focuses on the discovery, which both sources corroborate, but it happened in June. The lede focuses on the US Navy making an announcement on Sunday but, on careful reading, neither source clearly says the Navy made a public announcement. One of the sources says the US Navy "confirmed" (and "verified") the find on Sunday. The other source doesn't mention the US Navy doing that. Both sources say the Lost 52 Project made an announcement on Sunday; but making that the focus would entail a wholesale rewrite of the lede, and could be done in a wide variety of ways, so I couldn't do that without disqualifying myself from reviewing the article. The current wording of the lede gives an impression the only new public knowledge on Sunday was the Navy's confirmation, but from the sources I don't find that. 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 4528435 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 19:52, 13 November 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: There is a problem with the choice of focal event here. The headline focuses on the discovery, which both sources corroborate, but it happened in June. The lede focuses on the US Navy making an announcement on Sunday but, on careful reading, neither source clearly says the Navy made a public announcement. One of the sources says the US Navy "confirmed" (and "verified") the find on Sunday. The other source doesn't mention the US Navy doing that. Both sources say the Lost 52 Project made an announcement on Sunday; but making that the focus would entail a wholesale rewrite of the lede, and could be done in a wide variety of ways, so I couldn't do that without disqualifying myself from reviewing the article. The current wording of the lede gives an impression the only new public knowledge on Sunday was the Navy's confirmation, but from the sources I don't find that. 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.

@Pi zero:

• headline updated to focus on the announcement, which was on Sunday
• Washington Post says "The U.S. Navy confirmed on Sunday...", tweaked phrasing to specify that the Lost 52 Project made the announcement, and the Navy confirmed

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4528477 [Passed]

Revision 4528477 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4528477 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

• I wondered, after publishing, whether I should have taken a moment before to consider possible tweaks to make the headline more specific. --Pi zero (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Pi zero: What about "...discovery of U.S.S. Grayback near Okinawa"? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Would want to mention it's a wreck. There'd be a problem, all right, with length getting out of hand. --Pi zero (talk) 23:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)