Talk:Wikinews 2020: An 'Original reporting' year in review

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Progress table[edit]

Progress
Section Completed Verified?
1.1 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 14:59, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
1.2 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
1.3 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
2.1 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 18:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
2.2 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 19:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
3.1 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
4.1 Yes -- Acagastya (talk) 07:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
4.2 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
4.3 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 02:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
5.1 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 02:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
5.2 Yes --Acagastya (talk) 09:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
6.1 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 03:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
6.2 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 04:40, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
6.3 Yes --Acagastya (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
7.1 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 05:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
7.2 Yes --Acagastya (talk) 14:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
8.1 Yes --Acagastya (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
8.2 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 15:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
8.3 Yes --Acagastya (talk) 14:45, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
8.4 Yes --Acagastya (talk) 13:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
8.5 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
8.6 Yes --Acagastya (talk) 14:15, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
8.7 Yes --Acagastya (talk) 14:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
8.8 Yes --Acagastya (talk) 14:06, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
9.1 Yes --Acagastya (talk) 12:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
9.2 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
9.3 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 19:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
10.1 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
10.2 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 01:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
10.3 Yes --Pi zero (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing[edit]

@William S. Saturn, Pi zero: This is just a wild thought, but, is it possible for me to review some of the summaries WSS has added, while WSS reviews some of the summaries I wrote, in order to distribute the review that pi might have to undertake completely, otherwise?
•–• 08:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

@Acagastya, William S. Saturn: I see no procedural objection to doing so. When noting a summary as verified, one should likely sign it, identifying both who did the verifying and, in case something were to be edited later, as-of-when. --Pi zero (talk) 12:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
In the table above, one can sign in the verified, if that is what we are doing.
•–• 13:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
@Acagastya, William S. Saturn: I've linked the section numbers in the table to the sections in the article. Sometimes Firefox (though not Opera, I notice) takes me to a spot in the article vertically just below the heading of the linked section (so, some caution may be indicated in that regard). --Pi zero (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Precedent[edit]

--Pi zero (talk) 15:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Lede[edit]

I'm guessing the draft was a place-holder modeled on the 2014 article. However, our OR output pattern has been quite complicated, and 'increasing' didn't seem safe to say. I'm thinking, since it's short, meta-information, and I did keep my edit down to what was needful, I should still be safe for reviewing it. --Pi zero (talk) 15:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4598859 [Passed][edit]