Talk:Wikimedian activist Adrianne Wadewitz dies
Add topicJournalist notes
[edit]This was written because I have tremendous respect for her work. We have never communicated based on a search of my e-mail. :/ The story was all over my Facebook, with many people quoting/reposting Sarah's Facebook post. Sarah Stierch is another female Wikimedian activist who has contributed here a few times. her Facebook post confirms the death. There is nothing that states the date of her death as I can see. The posting time was based on my current timezone, though it looks like it was posted near midnight California time. I used her Wikipedia page for a source, though unclear how to do that in the context of notes. She was quoted a lot by the media. :/ Hence, this does not feel to me like a random Wikipedian dying and that her death is noteworthy, especially given the importance of her work. --LauraHale (talk) 11:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Review of revision 2538347 [Not ready]
[edit]  |
Revision 2538347 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 12:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I'm quite happy that the story is newsworthy. It's a sudden death which will always pass the car crash test. In this case, her WMF activism is just about substantial enough that the WMF aspect actually enhances newsworthiness slightly for our purposes. The problem is, I don't think the article does a good job of explaining that. The lede talks of "the gendergap problem". What gendergap problem? It's easy for us to forget non-contributors, whom our target audience generally comprises, know little or nothing of internal workings. Even the word gendergap is artificially created (by WMF contributors?) to the extent Wiktionary hasn't an entry. I'd suggest taking the word gendergap out of the lede, and replacing it with a few words about the women-in-WMF thing. ("Referred to in WMF circles as 'the gendergap'" might work if you're desperate to keep the word. It does have a ring to it.)Bump the Wiki Education stuff out of the lede to make the space, readd it below. Then add in 2-3 paragraphs about her activism and the problem. I'd suggest one para about her work and one about the figures behind the issue should between them establish newsworthiness. As it is, much of our audience will be left scratching their heads saying "so what?" We need to show them why this person mattered. 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 2538347 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 12:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: I'm quite happy that the story is newsworthy. It's a sudden death which will always pass the car crash test. In this case, her WMF activism is just about substantial enough that the WMF aspect actually enhances newsworthiness slightly for our purposes. The problem is, I don't think the article does a good job of explaining that. The lede talks of "the gendergap problem". What gendergap problem? It's easy for us to forget non-contributors, whom our target audience generally comprises, know little or nothing of internal workings. Even the word gendergap is artificially created (by WMF contributors?) to the extent Wiktionary hasn't an entry. I'd suggest taking the word gendergap out of the lede, and replacing it with a few words about the women-in-WMF thing. ("Referred to in WMF circles as 'the gendergap'" might work if you're desperate to keep the word. It does have a ring to it.)Bump the Wiki Education stuff out of the lede to make the space, readd it below. Then add in 2-3 paragraphs about her activism and the problem. I'd suggest one para about her work and one about the figures behind the issue should between them establish newsworthiness. As it is, much of our audience will be left scratching their heads saying "so what?" We need to show them why this person mattered. 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. |
Headline
[edit]Quick note: headline should be in present tense. --Pi zero (talk) 12:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Review of revision 2538972 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 2538972 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: The post from Sarah has either been taken down or had its privacy settings changed. Whilst I'd have preferred some note to that effect on talk it's a copypasta quote so I'm happy to take its contents as read, especially as I note our reporter is on Sarah's friends list. A very sad day for our movement. 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 2538972 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: The post from Sarah has either been taken down or had its privacy settings changed. Whilst I'd have preferred some note to that effect on talk it's a copypasta quote so I'm happy to take its contents as read, especially as I note our reporter is on Sarah's friends list. A very sad day for our movement. 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. |