Talk:Times Square marks New Year's Eve 2025 in New York City

Original reporting notes

Went out on the 28th, 30th, and 31st to Times Square to document the preparation and the event for Wikinews, speaking with a few people. SWinxy (talk) 08:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Emails, Phone call transcripts, other written evidence

Sent to scoop@. SWinxy (talk) 08:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Interview details

Several people were interviewed on the streets, who have been quoted in the article. The quotes come from recordings that people consented to participate in. SWinxy (talk) 08:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I can confirm that these two interviews took place at Times Square on Jan 1, 2025, shortly after midnight, as I was there at the time of the interviews. Tduk (talk) 17:20, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

On-the-spot notes

I spotted stands, notably some right by the entrance to the subway, selling 2025 merch. Rain stopped right before 11PM. SWinxy (talk) 08:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Details from broadcast report

N/A SWinxy (talk) 08:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Information shared privately for off-wiki confirmation

Sent to scoop@. SWinxy (talk) 08:16, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Email bounced. Looks like the domain expired? SWinxy (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey SWinxy, I suspect you were directed to the old scoop address, @wikinewsie.org (if you were, what page was it that directed you there?). The new address is scoopwn-reporters.org — however, most reviewers aren't on the scoop mailing list at the moment for a variety of reasons, including Madeleine and myself. I think I'll have time to review this over the next couple of days, so you could send all the stuff to me via EmailUser if that's alright. Which I hope includes more extensive notes on top of what was provided above. With notes, one should strive to provide more than strictly necessary. Reviewers can sometimes accept if a fact isn't explicitly stated in the notes, as long as what the notes do contain can be judged to reasonably accurately remind the reporter(s) of the fact (so it's better if that fact is, say, "There was a kid playing in the confetti" than some precise statistic). It would of course be no problem if you provide recordings or another form of documentation besides notes to verify part of the article. Heavy Water (talk) 03:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Much of the content I added that was based on my experience there, I tried to back up with some photos - I do have videos of some of it as well, including the method the police used for crowd control, and the confetti being released at midnight. Would that be helpful at all? Tduk (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I think it was this editnotice that appeared when creating this talk page. I'll send you an email. I didn't take notes in the moment; all of my notes were mental before being added to the story as I was developing it (i.e. in the page history). I'll take actual on-the-ground notes or voice memos for future stories. Currently, though, I'm on a health leave and am unable to do much of anything :( SWinxy (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Tduk: Yeah, certainly! But, as with the rest of the material, documentation needs to be provided on the talk page as to what backs up what.

SWinxy: Thanks, I knew I recognized these section headings but couldn't place them. Replied to your email. In that case, please just provide whatever other verifying material you have (e.g., the audio recordings of the interviews) and document what it verifies. Unfortunately we would need to cut what we can't verify from any of these materials or the sources. I hope your health is better soon. Heavy Water (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@SWinxy: please forward your notes and full interviews to scoop@wn-reporters.org. I have confirmed I can receive emails sent to that address. @Heavy Water: what specific information where you looking for? I may have time today or tomorrow to review this. Since I've reviewed so few OR articles, I would welcome any help or advice. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 13:50, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I sent the audio files on the 7th, but I didn't notice that it bounced for being too large. What's the file limit for the WN email server? A few minutes ago I tried sending an email that was under 15MB in total size, and it was still rejected. Heavy Water did get them on the 7th, though. SWinxy (talk) 15:39, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the max file size is but I suspect it's prohibitively small. I've asked Gryllida who supports the mail server.

Given that we haven't heard from Heavy Water on this in several days, please send the files to me at Wright.Michael.C(at)protonmail.com. There is a 25mb attachment limit per email with Proton mail. If any of the files are larger than that, you'll need to find a server to host them and email the links to me.

Thank you for your patience and sorry for the hassle. We have very few active reviewers at the moment. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Michael.C.Wright; Tduk; SWinxy: Sorry for going AWOL in the middle of the process. Thank you for reviewing this, Michael. Heavy Water (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

┌──────────────────────────┘
No worries by me. I was concerned when I didn't spot you originally had it under review[1] that I stopped your progress. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 21:48, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Confirmation of email receipt by accredited reporter

I have received an email from SWinxy that contains three MP3 files. I am reviewing them now.

Please note, when identifying oneself as a reporter;

Since Wikinews has no, strict, formal approval process for authors, when contacting sources, you must represent yourself as an independent author/researcher, not as a 'representative' of Wikinews.

– WN:OR

—Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 16:00, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Yep, I mixed up Wikinews with WMNYC that one time; my bad. SWinxy (talk) 20:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4833308 [Not ready]

Revision 4833308 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: Minor issue: we do not accept New York Times as a source because it requires payment to read, q.v. WN:PAYWALL. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Flow a bit awkward, jumps around from topic to topic. Reviewers can address this somewhat. Would be worth reading some past articles published here to try and fix some minor things, e.g., that we do not start articles with the city. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 4833308 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 21:55, 1 January 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not ready: Minor issue: we do not accept New York Times as a source because it requires payment to read, q.v. WN:PAYWALL. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: Flow a bit awkward, jumps around from topic to topic. Reviewers can address this somewhat. Would be worth reading some past articles published here to try and fix some minor things, e.g., that we do not start articles with the city. Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.

Image credit

Hi @SWinxy and @Tduk

Please use {{image source}} in image captions to indicate copyright holder for each photo, then I'll publish. Gryllida (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Gryllida: Please see the discussion above about verifying the OR. Heavy Water (talk) 23:18, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Would you be comfortable reviewing this? You're welcome to cut pieces that are unverified. I'm mostly away this week and cannot commit to process recordings. Gryllida (talk) 03:42, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure. Still waiting on Tduk's stuff, but fortunately we have plenty of time because this is OR. Heavy Water (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Did you need anything besides [2] ? (commons wouldn't let me upload it raw) Tduk (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

NPR source article

What was the NPR article titled "Y2K seems like a joke now, but in 1999 people were really freaking out" used for in the article? Thanks in advance. —Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Reviewer) 17:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It was previously used to reference the quarter-century anniversary of Y2K, but that line was removed on Jan 1. Pharos (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Review of revision 4835327 [Passed]

Revision 4835327 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I changed the order of the paragraphs so that the focal event was covered first, per WN:PYRAMID. The audio files are all decent quality and I believe we could upload them locally and at least link them from the talk page. View the edit history for other minor changes made. Thank you to everyone who helped get this one published and apologies again for the tedious process of getting the OR material verified. Our process around that needs improvement. One last note; as mentioned above, please remember to introduce yourself as an independent author or journalist. 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 4835327 of this article has been reviewed by Michael.C.Wright (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I changed the order of the paragraphs so that the focal event was covered first, per WN:PYRAMID. The audio files are all decent quality and I believe we could upload them locally and at least link them from the talk page. View the edit history for other minor changes made. Thank you to everyone who helped get this one published and apologies again for the tedious process of getting the OR material verified. Our process around that needs improvement. One last note; as mentioned above, please remember to introduce yourself as an independent author or journalist. 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.

Forget to archive it

You forget the

thing City Smash (talk) 19:02, 22 February 2025 (UTC)