Talk:Wikinews interviews Tom Pashby, leader of campaign group Include Mx
Add topicI interviewed Mx Pashby today, 10 June. A link to screenshots of the text conversation I had with them over Twitter. Asheiou (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- A very promising interview. To what extent, if at all, is USA Today used as a source? Opinion/Op Ed pieces are generally not considered hard sources for hard facts. Cheers, SVTCobra 22:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hiya @SVTCobra, just for the "The Mx title is often used by non-binary individuals or those who do not wish to declare their gender" sentence. There's most likely an alternative source that states that, but it's just difficult to find much non op-ed coverage of underreported topics like this. Asheiou (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Pre-review comment
[edit]The opening sentence is "British companies Argos and the Post Office came under recent fire for not including the gender-neutral title Mx". Coming under fire is a very subjective statement. By whom? What is the nature of the "fire"? What exactly is recent? Cheers, SVTCobra 13:36, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- In other words, I think the background information should be expanded a bit. SVTCobra 13:37, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've switched the focus to be Argos as they've received more coverage. I've also provided a bit more history. @SVTCobra Asheiou (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- We now have "Argos has experienced controversy for not including the gender-neutral title Mx" ... Again, this feels vague. I lightly perused the sources and I don't see any "controversy" other than the criticism from Include Mx and Pashby. Highlighting the campaign and its on-going criticism of Argos is more than newsworthy enough to justify the interview, but we should avoid misrepresenting it as a larger controversy than it factually is. After all, you do describe it as an "online micro-campaign". Cheers, SVTCobra 18:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your feedback, I've again adjusted focus to the criticism of the company from the campaign. @SVTCobra Asheiou (talk) 23:09, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- We now have "Argos has experienced controversy for not including the gender-neutral title Mx" ... Again, this feels vague. I lightly perused the sources and I don't see any "controversy" other than the criticism from Include Mx and Pashby. Highlighting the campaign and its on-going criticism of Argos is more than newsworthy enough to justify the interview, but we should avoid misrepresenting it as a larger controversy than it factually is. After all, you do describe it as an "online micro-campaign". Cheers, SVTCobra 18:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I've switched the focus to be Argos as they've received more coverage. I've also provided a bit more history. @SVTCobra Asheiou (talk) 15:52, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
when/where
[edit]@SVTCobra "when" is probably better for international readership, so thank you for the change! Using "where" there is a feature of my dialect, and although I do make efforts to standardise when writing, some things like that do fall through. Asheiou (talk) 18:55, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- It was primarily due to fact of two time references ... "last year" and "July" ... this, to me at least, suggested "when" was more appropriate than "where".
If, for example, the sentence had been: This controversy first reached public light online with Argos, where a petition was started in Birmingham, then "where" would be the appropriate choice. (My quick example is a bit awkward, too). Cheers, SVTCobra 19:13, 14 June 2023 (UTC)- I just have a hard time telling them apart because we quite often use "where" to mean "when" in this little corner of the country. I'll keep an eye on it in future to make sure I'm standardising a bit more and to make sure I'm understood with a bit less confusion. ^^ Asheiou (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- Don't worry about it. There are idiosyncrasies everywhere. SVTCobra 21:54, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
- I just have a hard time telling them apart because we quite often use "where" to mean "when" in this little corner of the country. I'll keep an eye on it in future to make sure I'm standardising a bit more and to make sure I'm understood with a bit less confusion. ^^ Asheiou (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Review of revision 4733170 [Passed]
[edit]  |
Revision 4733170 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: It can be good to place a different specific event in the lead to introduce an interview, but in this case that was more of an ongoing process and was accompanied by too much context for a concise lead-in to the interview. Please see edit history. 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 4733170 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:13, 20 June 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: It can be good to place a different specific event in the lead to introduce an interview, but in this case that was more of an ongoing process and was accompanied by too much context for a concise lead-in to the interview. Please see edit history. 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. |