Talk:Wikinews interviews candidate for Minneapolis mayor Philip Sturm

Forwarded

To scoop. --JJLiu112 (talk) 02:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@JJLiu112: any newbie reading this in future, would have no idea what this means. Could you be a little bit verbose?
•–• 04:43, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry. I've forwarded the e-mails concerning my discussion with Mr Sturm to scoop, an e-mail address administrators check to ensure the article's contents are legitimate. --JJLiu112 (talk) 04:52, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators and reviewers are NOT the same. Some reviewers have access to scoop. But it is not for admins.
•–• 05:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Method and purpose of contact

I contacted Sturm along with many other candidates for Minneapolis mayor, and other positions up for election on 2 November. Sturm and I had a few e-mails between us, and then he sent over his answers. I thanked him. --JJLiu112 (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Status of review

I have reviewed the interview. I need to verify stats from the questions and image captions. @JJLiu112: I can't see those questions for which no answer was provided. Can you please forward your sent email containing the questions, so I can verify those were the ones which were asked? I will review the remaining in the morning.
•–• 19:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Forwarded. --JJLiu112 (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Facing some difficulties verifying important bits. Could you come by on IRC @JJLiu112:?
•–• 16:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I still can't verify few things from the write-up. I don't want to unnecessarily drag this with not-readying the article, so when you are at peace, and you could come and discuss and help with finding those, that would be appreciated.
•–• 17:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The problems of the article are not fixed yet, @JJLiu112:. I have been avoiding not-ready'ing the article, but really, I don't see this going anywhere -- please come by on IRC whenever you feel convenient in the next few hours, else I will not-ready and carry on with the next article for the review.
•–• 06:18, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Links

Why can't the Battle of Al Kut, Baghdad, occupation of Haiti just be given Wikilinks? They're quite clearly being hinted to. The Battle of Al Kut 1). involved Col. Dowdy, 2). involved going around Al Kut, 3). involved Al Kut, 4). involved the Marine Corps. The Battle of Baghdad and occupation of Haiti can similarly be verified. They are mentioned exclusively in one section, quite literally in passing. It makes zero sense to dump them in another section, as if someone who finished reading the article would care, or even remember to read more about a topic that was mentioned at the beginning. Is it because it's not explicitly mentioned? Because if so, Kandahar Airport and Kandahar International Airport could be thoeretically different, why link those? --JJLiu112 (talk) 13:59, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

When we are talking about an event in the article and it is not the primary focus of the article; something that is "recommended reading", should stylistically go in the external links section. Ideally we should have a category for the event, but if we don't then a prolonged event which is not even central to the article needs to be in the external links if at all.
•–• 16:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a good excuse. What about inflation, then? Or the Banana Wars? --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to remove them, just like how you have been doing.
•–• 17:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

?! I've been doing the exact opposite! --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

If it was just "an event in the article", why add the Al Kut category? Either it's important or it isn't. --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Simple answer: DPL. Find all articles which mentions Al Kut and they are about elections. DPL helps with any researcher looking at our archives. Unlike Wikipedia, this category is ON WIKINEWS. A news article is a snapshot in time -- an encyclopædic article about an event is totally the opposite of it -- and if there is an overarching encyclopædic article, either put it in sister links/further reading, or don't put them at all.
•–• 17:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Would you like me to put the category Baghdad, or Donald Trump, then? Hell, he mentioned Banana Wars, might as well add Category:Food! --JJLiu112 (talk) 17:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Addition of categories is frankly unaffected by archival policy.
•–• 17:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Refer to Wikinews interviews 2020 Melbourne Lord Mayor Candidate Wayne Tseng -- the destruction of Bamiyan Buddha's very specific sub-section is linked in the article -- any other mention of events which weren't the central focal point of the article and were of events are in the sister links section.
•–• 18:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Linkedin paywall

Linkedin expects me to login to access the information -- so I can't access it. What info comes from there? Can it be cited from somewhere else?
•–• 16:35, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Review of revision 4619773 [Passed]

Revision 4619773 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: @JJLiu112: Thanks for the interview. Please go through the edit history once. There were a lot of things in the questions presented as facts which were not cited -- please cite them in future. {{Interview}} has a media parameter -- please make sure to add it. Thanks for sorting out the issues on-IRC, appreciate it. 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 4619773 of this article has been reviewed by Acagastya (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:10, 13 May 2021 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: @JJLiu112: Thanks for the interview. Please go through the edit history once. There were a lot of things in the questions presented as facts which were not cited -- please cite them in future. {{Interview}} has a media parameter -- please make sure to add it. Thanks for sorting out the issues on-IRC, appreciate it. 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.