Talk:Pope Leo XIV visits four nations in Africa

While waiting for review

Johnson524, I did a quick scan through the article and I think the WN:5Ws could be more effectively addressed in the lede (first paragraph). They do mostly get addressed by the end of the article, but a good article addresses them cleanly in the lede. The introduction of the itinerary in the lede also dilutes the focal event somewhat. Also, the lede and headline differ slightly as to what the focal event is:

• Headline focus: "visits four nations in Africa" → emphasizes the entire multi-country tour
• Article focus (lede): arrival in Angola as the third stop → a single moment within the tour

You can also link to the other Pope story in the section Related news (that you'll need to create before the Sources section).

Lastly, I recommend going through the article again, thinking about WN:NPOV (policy) and WN:Neutrality (essay). Attribute all data points clearly (e.g., Catholic population percentages), tighten language where it risks sounding like uncritical repetition of messaging, consider adding at least one non-Vatican perspective (academic, NGO, local official, or resident).

I may have time to review the article but am not sure when. There are very few people working on the 2026 Wind-down Wikinews project and I seem to be the only one with reviewer and/or admin access doing so, which is critical, unfortunately. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:09, 20 April 2026 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: a most valuable reply, thank you for taking the time to look at the article! 😀 Just from reading similar pieces I was under the impression that the lead was to discuss where the pope currently was in the trip, but that and the 5W concern should be fixed now. As I mentioned earlier, I FULLY understand if you don't have time or want to conduct a review, but I would be truly appreciative if you could. I intentionally only used three sources and made the article short to make it (hopefully) as painless as possible to review, and will make an effort to reply quickly to any feedback. Cheers! Johnson524 (talk) 07:00, 21 April 2026 (UTC)

I was hoping to have time to review this but wasn't able to get to it in time and it looks like the rest of the review crew has already checked out from reviewing.

The article is unfortunately no longer WN:Fresh and will need to be refocused, we call this Gatwicking, and in short it entails the following:

• Find recent developments related to the same topic to restore newsworthiness.
• Choose a new focal event based on those developments.
• Change the headline and lede to reflect the new event.
• Cite at least two independent, reliable sources supporting the updated focus.
• Revise or trim older material so the article centers on the new, timely event.

Let me know if you have any questions about the process. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 12:40, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Actually, let me take a run at it and see if it can be published with an exception for freshness... Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 12:42, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Review of revision 5011885 [Passed]

Revision 5011885 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:33, April 24, 2026 (UTC) with the following exceptions: Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed (exception) Although the visit began eleven days earlier, it continued into the freshness window and is among the final articles published before the project’s closure. Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As part of the review process, the article was revised for accuracy, neutrality, and inverted-pyramid structure. Several statements were corrected to distinguish between visits reported as scheduled and visits confirmed as having occurred. Unsupported or insufficiently sourced claims, including references to Lebanon and Turkey and “social justice,” were removed or revised. The article was also reorganized to reduce duplication and better foreground the central purpose and context of the visit. See the edit history for full details. Thank you for contributing one more article before the project closes! 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 5011885 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:33, April 24, 2026 (UTC) with the following exceptions: Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed (exception) Although the visit began eleven days earlier, it continued into the freshness window and is among the final articles published before the project’s closure. Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As part of the review process, the article was revised for accuracy, neutrality, and inverted-pyramid structure. Several statements were corrected to distinguish between visits reported as scheduled and visits confirmed as having occurred. Unsupported or insufficiently sourced claims, including references to Lebanon and Turkey and “social justice,” were removed or revised. The article was also reorganized to reduce duplication and better foreground the central purpose and context of the visit. See the edit history for full details. Thank you for contributing one more article before the project closes! 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.

-- Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 14:33, 24 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you so much for still conducting this review! I'm truly grateful to have made one more article 😀 Johnson524 (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC)