Talk:Musique Libre Femmes plays for Women's History Month at Tompkins Square Library in New York City

OR notes

I attended the event, performed a short interview I recorded, and will email scoop the appropriate two sound files that are referenced in the article. Tduk (talk) 20:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

• @Tduk: There is a quote in this article that says, "So we are celebrating Women's History Month with music lipo fun." (Emphasis added.) Is that a typo? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:09, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Good catch, that was a transcription bug.. Tduk (talk) 02:54, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  I'm a bit unsure of the correct way to have Downtown Music Gallery point to the fact that we have published articles about it before. Can anyone advise? Tduk (talk) 02:55, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

  Make a category for it, and redirect a main namespace page to the category. See how Australia does this, for example. Please fix this today as I am publishing now! Gryllida (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

  (I used an AI tool to transcribe the quotes) Tduk (talk) 17:11, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Adding to Category:AI usage declared. See Wikinews:Water cooler/proposals#Consensus assessment and possible next steps for details. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 06:40, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I'm not sure I should have declared this, since the language was unclear. AI was not used in the writing of this article. The current declaration does not seem to be consistent with the discussion linked. Tduk (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

As you stated, AI was used to generate the transcript, and at least one known error introduced during that process carried through into the article.

Because the transcript informed the article’s content, this constitutes AI use in a step that directly affected the published material.

Based on the discussion linked above, there appears to be a general preference for transparency around AI usage so its impact on the project can be evaluated.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 12:45, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

As you stated at that thread you linked, the scope of the original proposal is unclear. Without a more rigid definition, it appears you and I have different interpretations of what is meant by the term in this context; I suggest someone clarifies it further and supplies reasoning. Tduk (talk) 16:23, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Review of revision 5000969 [Passed]

Revision 5000969 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:16, March 24, 2026 (UTC) with the following exceptions: Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed (exception) Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I did minor edits and strongly recommend writing the report immediately after the event, not five days after. The month that is being celebrated, is already almost over now... I wanted to suggest video or audio uploads from such events if organisers and performers allow this. Thank you so much for the report. Keep up the great work. 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 5000969 of this article has been reviewed by Gryllida (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 09:16, March 24, 2026 (UTC) with the following exceptions: Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed (exception) Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I did minor edits and strongly recommend writing the report immediately after the event, not five days after. The month that is being celebrated, is already almost over now... I wanted to suggest video or audio uploads from such events if organisers and performers allow this. Thank you so much for the report. Keep up the great work. 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.

-- Gryllida (talk) 09:16, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

No notes provided

The article states notes were taken. However, no notes were provided. When interviews are done, they are typically transcribed as part of the notes per WN:OR. Simply stating one attended the event should not be considered sufficient notes.[1]

Notes should include what was observed by the reporter.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 11:49, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I didn't add that text, but my guess is that it's referring to the audio and visual notes I sent to scoop, discussed above. Tduk (talk) 14:23, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tduk, no notes came through to scoop, only two audio files (one .wav and one .mp3) and one photo.

Please add the notes to the talk page, minus any private information of course, so that readers who want to verify them can. Thank you.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:48, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I did not get what you are wanting. If I was attending, I would have come back home with a piece of paper with the person name who introduced event, plus audio recording. That is essentially all OR that was added to the page as other information was already provided online. Are you requesting piece of paper with two words on it? Gryllida (talk) 17:55, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

1. As SVTCobra stated in the post linked above, "The current policy is fine, but we don't enforce it enough. There are to many "I was there" type of notes."
2. WN:OR states "You must be able to provide evidence of everything you include in an original article." Notes are considered a source document.[2] It also states: "Include everything you can, including (for example) transcripts of interviews and e-mails."
3. WN:CS requires all facts to be supported by a source
4. WN:REV requires reviewers to verify all the facts

Without notes, how did you as a reviewer verify all the facts that aren't supported by the two web pages listed as sources? Where is the transcript? Was this another pseudo-review in which only the 5Ws were verified?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I did not need a 101, I needed clarification what exactly you are expecting the notes to include, for this specific page. Please clarify this here. Gryllida (talk) 18:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

No, it was not a 5W-only review. That is a serious accusation to me and I ask it to be dismissed or otherwide it requires some serious evidence for it. Gryllida (talk) 18:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Text was included in article word to word, and audio was provided. I am not seeing what else may be missing for a verification to occur. I am requesting your clarification what is missing. Gryllida (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tduk were there any additional notes that you took or was there just the two audio file and one photo?

If that is the extent of the notes, please add the full transcripts of both interviews as required by WN:OR, minus any private information of course.

Please also note for future OR, anything "original" in the article that is not supported by the listed sources, must be supported by some form of note provided in the talk page. Thank you.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 18:33, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

The transcripts are identical to what is in the article. I put them in directly, unchanged. Are you just asking me to copy it back here? or are you asking me to transcribe additional material which was not used, and not yet transcribe? In either case, what specifically in WN:OR backs up that request? I am not seeing anything relating to this, only that notes need to be on the Talk page. Tduk (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

@Tduk, what is documented in the article is not the full transcripts. I just listened to the file titled cheryl.wav and it includes your question as well as additional response from Cheryl that is not included in the article.

Regarding the pertinent quotes from WN:OR that require notes as well as transcripts, see above comment.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 20:07, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it would help us all understand what you want if you directly answered my question. "are you asking me to transcribe additional material which was not used?" Your answer appears to be yes. Again you linked to WN:OR but you did not (as I asked you to) show which section of it you think states that entire transcripts, and not just relevant (unedited) sections, need to be included. Posting the relevant policy which asks for this may help avoid you having to ask for unclear things in the future. It will also affect interview strategy going forward, if in order to include a sentence quote it is required to transcribe and proofread a potentially hour long interview. Alternatively, I could have edited the interview before sending it to scoop. It's not clear to me why you are asking what you are asking, and you have not explicitly showed where policy asks for what you are asking for (which I think is entire transcripts of all discussions). Tduk (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm asking you to transcribe both interviews in their entirety, minus any personal information. This way readers of the article can see what questions were asked and the entire answer given, even if it was not included in the article.

> Again you linked to WN:OR but you did not (as I asked you to) show which section of it you think states that entire transcripts, and not just relevant (unedited) sections, need to be included.

The quote is above. In the linked post. For your convenience, here is the quote again: "Include everything you can, including (for example) transcripts of interviews and e-mails."

everything.you.canMichael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 20:27, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I think it's reasonable to assume (as I did) that this refers to raw transcripts of interviews which are included in the article, not that every word spoken and deemed not worthy of including needs to be transcribed. That is the whole point of scoop verification. Can we get a third opinion on how this needs to be interpreted? or rather, fourth opinion, since it seems to be only you who here has this interpretation. Tduk (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

For clarification, please see also the Wikinews:Pillars of writing states "OR requires thorough reporter's notes;"

It further states: "OR notes publicly document where the information comes from for both verification and authentication;

It further states: "aim for substantially more documentation than needed, rather than for sufficiency. [emphasis added]"Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 21:11, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

See also: Wikinews:Writing an article, which states "leave detailed notes about the original reporting on the discussion page."

And this interpretation: "One is always advised to aim to provide more notes than necessary."Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 21:18, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Here's yet another interpretation: "Handing out accreditation to anyone and everyone willing to start is a nice beast, but what we risk here is someone taking a couple pretty pictures but not taking proper notes due to lack of understanding of what has to go to an article for it to be rock solid regarding neutrality and accuracy."Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 23:57, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

So you are requesting to include all transcribings here (via email to scoop) because you are concerned that something essential may have been omitted and that may have compromised accuracy or neutrality of the report. Gryllida (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The issue is not a concern that something may have been omitted. The issue is that additional interview content exists beyond what is documented, and the reporting is not supported by notes that function as a publicly available source.

For original reporting, notes are expected to be published on the talk page (with only sensitive personal information withheld) so that both reviewers and readers can verify what was said and in what context. Providing audio privately, whether directly to a reviewer or via Scoop, does not meet that standard.

Where interview content extends beyond what is included in the article, the notes must include enough of that material to demonstrate that quotes are accurate, complete, and not taken out of context. A transcript is the most straightforward way to provide that in this case.

The request is therefore to add sufficient notes to the talk page to allow independent, public verification of the original reporting.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 21:21, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I received the notes above and in scoop. I added that text for the reader's benefit so that they understand what happened. Gryllida (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

I found an error.

There is may an issue I noticed. Anikmolla786 (talk) 13:08, 26 March 2026 (UTC)

The performance started at 6:00 p.m. New York Time (2200 UTC), and was introduced by director of adult services Jeffrey Katz."6:00 p.m. New York Time (2300 UTC)" In March, New York is on Eastern Daylight Time (UTC-4), so 6:00 p.m. = 22:00 UTC, not 23:00. I made an edit too. If you find that I'm correct then approve that or ask for approval. Anikmolla786 (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC)