Talk:Oliver, Edmonton to be renamed at start of 2025

Review of revision 4832967 [Not ready]

Revision 4832967 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Er...same issue as with your Generation Beta article. To meet the newsworthiness standards, a focal event needs to be specific — a discrete event — relevant — notable enough for news coverage, basically — and fresh — to have happened recently enough. Future events at large unfortunately just don't make the cut to be even potentially newsworthy. A possible angle for changing the focal event on this is to wait until New Years' Day and see if at least two mutually independent, verifiable sources verifying the focal event — which then would be the name change officially taking effect; I'm also wondering about the possibility there will be some ceremony on New Years' Day or soon after officiating the rename that could serve as a new focal event. Please take note of our conventions around neutrality; in its most straightforward tenet, for example, we don't take sides by saying stuff like that Oliver was "distinguished" or "this research mars any further memorial", but we can report specific entities said so. 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 4832967 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:07, 30 December 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Er...same issue as with your Generation Beta article. To meet the newsworthiness standards, a focal event needs to be specific — a discrete event — relevant — notable enough for news coverage, basically — and fresh — to have happened recently enough. Future events at large unfortunately just don't make the cut to be even potentially newsworthy. A possible angle for changing the focal event on this is to wait until New Years' Day and see if at least two mutually independent, verifiable sources verifying the focal event — which then would be the name change officially taking effect; I'm also wondering about the possibility there will be some ceremony on New Years' Day or soon after officiating the rename that could serve as a new focal event. Please take note of our conventions around neutrality; in its most straightforward tenet, for example, we don't take sides by saying stuff like that Oliver was "distinguished" or "this research mars any further memorial", but we can report specific entities said so. 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.