Talk:Robert Dick and Mark Dresser re-unite at the Fridman Gallery

Original Reporting notes

I was at this performance, observing details, and have included a follow-up email correspondance with Dick in its entirety in this article. Tduk (talk) 04:09, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Email or in-person interview

Please forward the email to Scoop@wn-reporters.org for verification.

I don't see where it is made clear in our article that the email is included at all.

Our article states "When asked about the collaboration after the show, Dick stated..." indicates an in-person interview. Is there audio that can be uploaded as part of the notes (needed for verification)?Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:08, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

No, it was done by e-mail after the show. The entire e-mail response is included, except for the email headers, which would be a privacy violation. As I've discussed before, I don't feel it's appropriate to put information that could violate privacy anywhere on wikinews. I thought this was pretty clearly explained by "have included a follow-up email correspondance with Dick in its entirety in this article". Tduk (talk) 19:15, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

> As I've discussed before, I don't feel it's appropriate to put information that could violate privacy anywhere on wikinews.
To clarify, no one is being asked to publish private information. When an email interview is conducted, the standard practice is simply to forward the source material to Scoop so reviewers can complete verification. That information is not made public, and it’s only accessible to reviewers for the purpose of confirming the article.

If there’s hesitancy about sharing the supporting material with reviewers, the project may not be able to complete a review. Verification is a core requirement on en.WN.

WN:CG notes:

Wikinews allows original reports if they are attributed to identifiable sources. For now, anonymous reporting is not allowed.

And WN:OR explains:

You must be able to provide evidence of everything you include in an original article. Therefore, it is vital that you keep adequate notes, and place your notes on the article's discussion page.

Right now, the notes provided amount to a single sentence, which doesn’t give reviewers enough to verify the reporting. More detailed notes, including forwarding the interview to Scoop will make it easier for reviewers to help move the article forward.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 19:51, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

You are being very vague on what you want. If I forwarded it to scoop, I would remove all e-mail addresses (just like how phone numbers are not required for phone interviews). The e-mail would consist entirely of the text already in the article. How does this help things? If I understood what you needed, I would be able to help. There is nothing anonymous about this, I am simply not disclosing personal information. Maybe someone else can explain better what is required. Tduk (talk) 22:59, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

> If I understood what you needed, I would be able to help.
I need to verify two things:

1. That you communicated with Robert Dick. The fastest way is for Robert to send a short email to Scoop@wn-reporters.org from a verifiable domain such as robertdick.net verifying his response is represented verbatim as he sent it to you.
2. That you identified yourself as an independent reporter when requesting the interview.

Reviewers must be able to confirm this as part of the standard OR process.
If we cannot verify these two points, the article cannot be published.
>If I forwarded it to scoop, I would remove all e-mail addresses
For email interviews, reviewers must be able to see the interviewee’s actual address in Scoop in order to authenticate the communication. This information is never published and is only visible to reviewers for verification. If the address is removed, verification isn’t possible.
This isn’t about exposing private information. It’s about allowing reviewers to confirm that the person you interviewed is who they claim to be. That verification step is required for all original reporting, and it’s a condition of publication.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 00:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Disregard the earlier instructions. I’ve contacted Robert at his publicly listed email address to request verification and copied Scoop on that message. I also asked him to include Scoop in his reply. Once we hear back, we can complete the verification step.

In the meantime, this is a good opportunity to review the article for any Style guide issues. For example, each entry in the Sources section should include a date, either the publication date or the date you accessed it. There may be other areas to adjust as well; that’s simply the first one I noticed.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 00:55, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I can confirm that I have received email confirmation from Robert, who also verified the responses as represented in the last three paragraphs of our draft article.

He added:

However, the photo captions need correction. From left to right, photo #4 should be captioned “Robert Dick plays the Glissando Flute®" and photo #5 should be captioned “Robert Dick plays the piccolo”.

I have made these changes.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 01:33, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

I have added the publication dates to the sources, made the clarifications/corrections requested by Mr. Dick, and a few other minor changes (see the edit history for full details).

Please go through the article once more to make sure it is buttoned-down for accuracy, neutrality, and style. Add it to the review queue when you think it's ready. I should have time to do a full review tomorrow if another reviewer doesn't get to it before me.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 02:05, 9 December 2025 (UTC)

Style guide

Please also check the article for style guide issues. For example, the sources need either published dates or (date access) added.Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:13, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4955171 [Passed]

Revision 4955171 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:41, December 10, 2025 (UTC) with the following exceptions: Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed (exception) Making an exception for WN:OR. Possible to publish sooner had WN:OR been followed. Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As prep for and as part of the review, I corrected tense and Style Guide issues, clarified factual points including that the interview occurred by email, and refined the description of the Glissando Headjoint. I standardized formatting by replacing smart quotes and converting links that resolved locally, added archive URLs and publication dates to improve sourcing, added appropriate categories, and included an external link as a courtesy to the interviewee. I also made small clarifications based on follow-up information received through Scoop. See the edit history for full details. For future OR, please review WN:OR before requesting review. Interviews must be fully verifiable: the interviewee’s identity, the reporter’s identification as an independent reporter, and the accuracy of all quoted responses. Verification of responses should be demonstrated in the notes on the article’s talk page. 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 4955171 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:41, December 10, 2025 (UTC) with the following exceptions: Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed (exception) Making an exception for WN:OR. Possible to publish sooner had WN:OR been followed. Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: As prep for and as part of the review, I corrected tense and Style Guide issues, clarified factual points including that the interview occurred by email, and refined the description of the Glissando Headjoint. I standardized formatting by replacing smart quotes and converting links that resolved locally, added archive URLs and publication dates to improve sourcing, added appropriate categories, and included an external link as a courtesy to the interviewee. I also made small clarifications based on follow-up information received through Scoop. See the edit history for full details. For future OR, please review WN:OR before requesting review. Interviews must be fully verifiable: the interviewee’s identity, the reporter’s identification as an independent reporter, and the accuracy of all quoted responses. Verification of responses should be demonstrated in the notes on the article’s talk page. 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) 14:41, 10 December 2025 (UTC)