Talk:U.S. President Obama's farewell address focuses on accomplishment

Full Transcript

Can be found at http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-obama-farewell-speech-transcript-20170110-story.html

Thanks. The cited source for the raw text of Obama's speech is NPR. I prefer it because it lists the words as he said them, including responses to the crowd and improvisation. The LA Times transcript is the prepared remarks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Our own view

So how much editorializing do we get to do on here? Obama's speech was so wide-ranging that almost any publication could paint it in any way. The Telegraph is focusing on his warnings to protect democracy, but they could just as easily have picked his paean to American accomplishment, his faith in Millenials, etc. etc. I don't so much as want to give my own take on it as say "Hey look how all the papers are characterizing this differently/focusing on just this one part of a big speech." On the 'pedia, that would be at least borderline OR. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, we do OR here occasionally. Personally, what I'd like to see is us at least touching upon all the key aspects of the speech. When doing it your way, we run into a neutrality problem; which papers do we choose? Possibly not insurmountable, but would need done with great care. I'd be interested to see what others have to say, though. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I was expecting more diversity of reaction than there was. Salon, Telegraph and the Post all thought Obama was issuing a warning. Anywho, I hope you like it. I went less for punchy wording and more for flow. If I've got a concern it might be that it's too quote-heavy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"Only" vs "Biggest" superpower

I was going for snappy prose here. Here's my source, Time magazine, for referring to the U.S. as the world's "only" rather than "biggest" superpower. China is on its way but it still doesn't quite qualify. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4278308 [Passed]

Revision 4278308 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Some thoughts; I struggled with neutrality here. This piece pushes the limits on editorialising, but I understand why. Generally, we shouldn't direct-quote news sources unless they themselves become part of the story. This particular election will be remembered for blurring that line, and I wavered on this. "I hope you like it." I do. Challenging to review, and raising some big questions on neutrality/editorialising, but I do very much like it. I suppose covering a big speech rather demands a lot of quotes, incidentally. At no point, however, does the article mention which parties Obama and Trump represent; this is, after all, a transfer of power from one party to another. As a tangent, File:Obama meeting with Trump 2.jpg looks perfect for any article about the actual handover. 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 4278308 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 14:32, 12 January 2017 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Some thoughts; I struggled with neutrality here. This piece pushes the limits on editorialising, but I understand why. Generally, we shouldn't direct-quote news sources unless they themselves become part of the story. This particular election will be remembered for blurring that line, and I wavered on this. "I hope you like it." I do. Challenging to review, and raising some big questions on neutrality/editorialising, but I do very much like it. I suppose covering a big speech rather demands a lot of quotes, incidentally. At no point, however, does the article mention which parties Obama and Trump represent; this is, after all, a transfer of power from one party to another. As a tangent, File:Obama meeting with Trump 2.jpg looks perfect for any article about the actual handover. 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.

Regarding neutrality, I was going for "punchy" per review of a previous article (which in turn involved some reservations about the level of explanation about the electoral college, the lack of which had been cited as a weakness in the article before that). This is a Wikiproject and individual variation among reviewers is to be expected. I'm watching Agastya Chandrakant struggle with getting that Telegram article past review, but if you look at their contribution history, some highly similar articles—same author, similar subject, same problems—have been approved in the past.

looks perfect for any article about the actual handover.

If it goes well, yes. Fingers crossed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Just because we've published articles in the past does not mean we must slavishly continue to handle their issues the same way in the future; there's room for us to learn and try to improve our practices. We don't continue to improve any given article indefinitely over time (archiving policy); but how to handle a particular issue can be an ongoing dialog over time. Sometimes I do manage to address such developing issues in review comments, with an eye particularly to noting when something I've just done ought not be taken too much as a model going forward. All this is related, also, to how one goes about maintaining standards without becoming bureaucratic. --Pi zero (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

This is itself an article another reviewer could have a radically different view of ;) BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)