Talk:Peggy Whitson, record-breaking 'American space ninja', returns to Earth

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Review of revision 4343339 [Not ready][edit]

I would also like to see Jezebel established for future articles, but it is not difficult at all to find sources for this one. Easy fix. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi zero: looking at te edit history, the source was replaced, but nothing significant was used from NPR. Also, the point about hurricane is pointless. There is no connection, so a) I would not allow that unless it has some connection and b) the edit history must hint usage of second source, it should not be a source farm. Comments? (talk) 12:41, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with mentioning the hurricane in the article. It's background, it's related to the story (if there were otherwise any doubt, Whitson said something about it), and it's placed well down the inverted pyramid (which is the right place for it, since it's peripheral). Reviewers shouldn't get involved in content choice unless it becomes really important (I keep thinking of the article I reviewed, once upon a time, about the last US combat troops from the Iraq War leaving Iraq, that spent a lot of space discussing the war while somehow managing to convey the impression that nobody in the US had ever been opposed to it; that I not-ready'd, and it was a vastly better article when it got resubmitted and published). The related news complements that point; so I see no problem with those inclusions. --Pi zero (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the source code, you'll see passages marked <!--NPR-->. NPR was the source for "Whitson was the first woman to command ISS" and the Houston quotes. The NPR article sported one of the quotes that I first saw in Jezebel. There is also a large amount of overlap between the NPR article (most of the articles available about this event, actually) and AP.
I also thought it was neat to connect two related articles that are about two disparate events happening at the same time rather than about the same arc of events at different points in time. Darkfrog24 (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When I was new, and I had used NYTimes, which was paywalled, and the article was {{not ready}}'d, I replaced it with other source which had overlapping content, but it was not ready'd again for not drawing any facts from it. (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Reviewers shouldn't get involved in content choice" -- but what if the point fails to establish a context -- what if there is a connection, but needs to be explained? Just like in the article about triple talaq, the only reason Hindu's sati pratha was mentioned was because it was a religious custom, and that was eradicated. So, what about this one? So if there is some good connection, it is fine, else it is not worth saying. (and if it is to promote older article, then it is a big NO) (talk) 16:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are considerations like failing to establish context. I guess what I was trying to articulate was that the reporter needs to have lots of leeway to decide what to cover and how to cover it, as long as... well, as long as it works. If I were to critique the paragraph about Harvey, I would say that, as currently written, it assumes the reader already knows about Harvey. If I were reviewing this I would then have to struggle with whether or not I could fix that with a change trivial enough to fall within reviewer's purview. --Pi zero (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are aware about the hurricane, they would think "why mention this?". For those who don't know, they would say "what the hell is this and what is the relation?". In any case, the connection and context should be more than her home situated in Houston. (talk) 16:58, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I get the impression the whole state of Texas is pretty traumatized; I think you're mistaken about those who know being likely to think "why mention this?" --Pi zero (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The world is bigger than Texas. (Unless [1] this is taken too seriously.) The first thing that came to my mind was "Why mention this?" -- same with Ellipse0934. I believe there are others who think the same. No matter how many people are affected, if we fail to establish the connection -- it is of no use. (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your thinking. The size of the world seems utterly irrelevant to the question. This article isn't about the world, it's about Peggy Whitson. There are two questions here: is the mention of Harvey justifiable, and is it justified. I'd really like you to explain what is needed to justify it, but if you really can't see that it's possible to justify it then presumably you don't know what is needed (because you don't see that there is anything that would justify it). --Pi zero (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Assorted anonymous contributors 1) now that I have pointed out what I got from NPR, are your concerns satisfied? 2) are you the same person as each other and/or as Acagastya the reviewer? We're such a small crowd on here that being three people instead of two can tip the scales (as opposed to being forty-two instead of forty-one). Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkfrog24: This isn't a vote. It's true that your paragraph about Harvey fails to explain the significance. That said, it would be pointless for me to rewrite the paragraph to address this problem; I would disqualify myself from reviewing it, and could only make it acceptable to me, having no idea how to make it acceptable to the other currently-active reviewer because I can't figure out their thinking on this.

It appears to me you have three choices. You can either revise the paragraph to explain the significance, hopefully satisfying my concerns; or you can remove it; or you can give up on the article. Fwiw, I personally would recommend the first option; but keep in mind, I intend to review Zanimum's article first (hopefully, tomorrow morning).

Btw, way back at the not-ready review comment the question raised was about acceptability of Jezebel. I admit I don't see any basis for considering it anything but a blog; its self-claim to have a staff of writers doesn't in itself signify anything. --Pi zero (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be a vote, but it is a conversation and I want to know if I'm responding to one person, two people or three. As you point out, if these anons are both Acagastya, that would explain why they're not just improving the article themselves.
One post ago you just said that the mention of Harvey was justified. Aside from that typo I fixed, what's different? "Explain the significance" of what? You mean put in a line to the effect of "Hurricane Harvey is a big storm that just trashed Houston"? Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:20, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your post kind of bothers me, Pi Zero. You're acting like I refused to change the article when what I actually did was say "Here's what you were looking for. Do you still see a problem?" Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:29, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, substantive stuff: I made a small change to the article, but I feel what we're going for is "Would a reader who, for whatever reason, has not heard of Hurricane Harvey before still understand this article?" I feel the article now conveys the concept "Hurricane Harvey was a big storm that affected Houston, which matters because NASA has facilities there." I think it did before, but now it does it even more. If that was not the issue, please respond. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
About the IP/logging-in thing, Darkfrog24, I basically agree with you — logging in would be preferable; I only intended the voting remark to maintain separation of issues.

It's entirely possible I slipped slightly on terminology. Using the distinction I (later) made between "justifiable" and "justified", I meant to suggest it was justifiable, regardless of whether or not it had actually been justified in the text of the article. It's also possible I underestimated how well the article was already conveying the Harvey thing, but, as you say, it does so better now, at least in my judgement. --Pi zero (talk) 12:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding so graciously. And yes, the reader is getting a better article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a good when we end up with a better deliverable. (Fortunately, got it reviewed under the wire.)

One of the views of an article I try to keep in mind is, if somebody in the distant future reads it as an archived snapshot in time, will they understand? They could easily be unaware of Harvey. --Pi zero (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4344358 [Passed][edit]

Is it too late to fix the comma in the title? It should read "Peggy Whitson, record-breaking 'American space ninja,' returns to Earth" to match the punctuation and spelling in the rest of the article. Darkfrog24 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We try to minimize renaming after publication, to avoid multiple entries in some feeds. I'd rather not do it now, for that reason. It's not substantive, though, so it could be done after the article is fully protected in the archives (thus, off then main page and out of all feeds). If we remember. --Pi zero (talk) 23:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. Sorry for the late reply but I'm having computer trouble. 11:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)