Talk:US Senate votes to repeal authorizations of use of force against Iraq

Title is a work in progress

My titles always get changed in the review process...I know I'm bad at making good titles. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Sources cited inline and linked

I am testing the process as outlined in an on-going discussion being had here. I offer to remove all citations after the article is reviewed and deemed ready to publish by a reviewer. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not think the inline links will be accepted by the community. While inline links or footnotes may be found in an academic paper, they are generally not found in news articles as written by newspapers and news agencies, the style of which Wikinews seeks follow. Sometimes, Wikinewsies identify the source in a wikitext within the article to help the reviewer identify the source which contains a particular fact or quote. I think you experimented with that. I did the same for a while, however, I found that most reviewers objected to that as well. They felt it created more work for them as they had to remove the wikitext during the review. If something in an article is singularly sourced, it is probably better to just attribute in the prose of the article. Some examples: "According to Mewspaper X, John Doe cried after losing the election" or "John Doe told the News Agency, he was feeling sad". If I feel like I need to help the reviewer, I have started to put it on the talk page where I sometimes create a section called "Notes for the reviewer".
In such a "Notes" section, I might say "Source A and Source B have slightly different translations of the same quote, but I chose to use Source B for reason". I hope I am coherent and not just rambling. Cheers, SVTCobra 18:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

The inline links are to be removed by the reviewer like wikitext, if I understand correctly. Heavy Water (talk) 18:32, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

SVTCobra; Yes, your advice on attribution is good, and well-received. I received similar feedback from a reviewer recently. I didn't think about a 'notes to reviewers' section in the talk page. I typically use a section per topic or question, but may use your suggestion as well or in place of what I currently do. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 19:22, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, yes, these inline source links are meant to be removed before publication. I'd like to test if it is convenient for reviewers to have a quick link, from visual editor, to the source. Maybe I'm further complicating it, or trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist. I hope not. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 19:25, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, I am old-school, so I don't use visual editor. In essence, I think it is just like wikitext references. Personally, I don't mind them. As you saw in my (unfortunately) abandoned review of an earlier article, I used them to verify quotes. I am just telling you some of my experiences. I don't think there's a clear-cut policy on it. The wikitext version of it has been used in the past. I am not sure the inline version is any better. Imho, a diligent reviewers ought to have all the sources open in different tabs as they perform their step in the publication process. Anyway, most of my activities are janitorial at this point, I can only provide a historical perspective. I think 90% of all reviews are performed by two Wikinewsies at present. Cheers, SVTCobra 19:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm the same, source editor for me. I'll add that I don't care for the appearance of the "modified citations" I'm currently using in this article. It clutters the article. Maybe I'll try superscript notes similar to what a <ref> renders. For example¹.

I still think there has to be a better way that can be standardized. It must be frustrating for reviewers to have to learn the way each individual writer cites their sources and for longer articles, that undoubtedly discourages reviewing at some level.

Does anyone know how it's done at the Russian Wikinews? They seem to be pump out more articles.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 15:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I only use source too. Russian Wikinews is much more "productive" (by sheer volume) because, like most Wikinews editions, they don't have review. Heavy Water (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Source USA.gov

I'm unsure how to cite USA.gov as a source. I believe I have previously broke linkage in sources such as GovTrack.us by including the url as the pub in the source. So this time I'm trying something different. The source identifies itself explicitly as USA.gov. Feedback is appreciated. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:38, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe I have answered my own question. I changed the pub to "USA.gov" and that allowed it to be properly linked to the Wikipedia page for USA.gov. Is this the correct way to do it? Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 18:01, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

GovTrack.us not cited yet

I included GovTrack in the list of sources in anticipation of that site being updated. If I don't cite that source by the time the article is ready for review, I will remove it. Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 17:41, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4718668 [Not ready]

Revision 4718668 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: I. Needs to be rewritten to meet WN style. Title doesn't clarify what Senate. Caption not sourced. No people wikilinked. 'Established in previous article' remove. Please read already published articles for guidance there. Also unclear whether 'proponents of the bill' made these statements during the debate to approve the bill. Why are the reps mentioned in paragraph 2? II. After all this, doesn't actually explain what it does. CNN says: "would mark a formal conclusion to the conflicts and a symbolic reassertion of Congress’ ability to declare war". That's literally all we need. Also, CNN cited statements like "beyond its original scope" with examples. These need to be provided, otherwise, it's just an unqualified analysis. 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 4718668 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:43, 2 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Style: Not ready: See below. Comments by reviewer: I. Needs to be rewritten to meet WN style. Title doesn't clarify what Senate. Caption not sourced. No people wikilinked. 'Established in previous article' remove. Please read already published articles for guidance there. Also unclear whether 'proponents of the bill' made these statements during the debate to approve the bill. Why are the reps mentioned in paragraph 2? II. After all this, doesn't actually explain what it does. CNN says: "would mark a formal conclusion to the conflicts and a symbolic reassertion of Congress’ ability to declare war". That's literally all we need. Also, CNN cited statements like "beyond its original scope" with examples. These need to be provided, otherwise, it's just an unqualified analysis. 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.

@JJLiu112: Michael is attempting a different method for indicating sourcing for reviewers to utilize, then remove, so "established in previous article" indicates sourcing from the linked article (which is listed in Related news as it should be). --Heavy Water (talk) 04:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

@JJLiu112: thank you for the feedback. To make sure I understand you correctly, I have some questions:

No people wikilinked. All people are linked with the exception of Bridget Moix who has no associated wiki biography. Should I link her name to the page for Friends Committee on National Legislation?

Also unclear whether 'proponents of the bill' made these statements during the debate to approve the bill. The sources don't clarify that. For example, NPR simply says ""This effort has been years in the making," said Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer. "The American people are tired of endless wars in the Middle East."" Can you provide an example of what you are looking for here?

Why are the reps mentioned in paragraph 2? The reps are mentioned in paragraph 2 because they are proponents of the bill and made statements about the bill. Should they not be mentioned?

After all this, doesn't actually explain what it does I assume you are referring to the bill. The first sentence states what it does: "a bill that would repeal two authorizations for use of military force (AUMF)."

The other issues I believe have been addressed in my most recent edits to the article.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

@Michael.C.Wright: So what I have to say is that this article has a really odd way of incorporating background information that's helpful, but still background, and omitting valuable information related to the focal event, such as the vote totals, quotes from the focal event and the debate on it, etc.

The article does not follow WN:PYRAMID: old quotes are currently placed before crucial background, for instance. I fixed inverted pyramid issues myself on your first few articles, but that, too, is stretching "uninvolved" as you gain more experience. Heavy Water (talk) 23:41, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

"...omitting valuable information related to the focal event, such as the vote totals" — vote totals are mentioned in the first sentence.

" [omitting] the debate on it" — paragraphs 2 & 3 deal solely with the debate. Paragraph 2 focuses on the proponents of the bill and paragraph 3 deals with the opponents of the bill.

I know that the argument by Lee and Moix is older than, say the arguments made by Schumer. However, they make sense when one reads the article as a lede, a paragraph about the proponents, and a paragraph about the opponents. In that context, I think the violation of the inverted pyramid makes sense.

I would also say that the debate over the core issue that the bill addresses has been on-going for some time. As Schumer said "This effort has been years in the making."[1] I don't think a purely-chronological ordering of arguments is necessary in the context of this article, which is meant to be a brief summary (primarily for easier/quicker review). None of the arguments or statements are presented in a way that their order is critical. For example, does it matter that McConnell said “Our terrorist enemies aren’t sunsetting their war against us" before Lee and Moix wrote "lawmakers in Congress are also abdicating a core constitutional responsibility?" The way it is currently written does not make any of the facts untrue or misleading or out of any context except time.

I'll re-arrange the last two paragraphs to see if I can make it flow better. But I would like to hear feedback on the above before I do any major overhaul of the article.

I think the "mission accomplished" image worked because it supported the argument mentioned in the CRS report: that once the original mission was accomplished, the 2002 AUMF had no force. But I'm not ready to die on that particular hill...

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 02:10, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, it appears I did miss the vote totals. But I did recognize there were arguments covered, perhaps I should have been clearer. What I was saying was that the actual floor debate quotes were omitted in favor of old quotes like Lee and Moix's. But maybe I'm making a mountain out of a mole hill. I'll review it now.

Sure, we can include the Mission Accomplished banner, but it's not about the focal event, and there isn't really room to move it down in such a short article. Heavy Water (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Review of revision 4719645 [Passed]

Revision 4719645 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good article. I fixed the headline, which incorrectly stated the repeal was only for the 2002 authorization; it is for the 1991 and 2002 authorizations, plus many other style things which can be picked up from the edit history. If we have it in the cat for Barbara Lee, it should also be in those for Schumer, McConnell, and Romney. But there is an ongoing debate about whether a quote alone is sufficient to justify categorizing. And please remove unused sources and the colons before category names before review (in fact, colons before category names are only necessary for prepared stories). 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 4719645 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Good article. I fixed the headline, which incorrectly stated the repeal was only for the 2002 authorization; it is for the 1991 and 2002 authorizations, plus many other style things which can be picked up from the edit history. If we have it in the cat for Barbara Lee, it should also be in those for Schumer, McConnell, and Romney. But there is an ongoing debate about whether a quote alone is sufficient to justify categorizing. And please remove unused sources and the colons before category names before review (in fact, colons before category names are only necessary for prepared stories). 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.