Is this news, as it stands? Pricasso's been around a while (Commons has a painting donated by Pricasso of Jimbo that's actually, well, frankly rather good and has been about for years) so the only event is some competing orgs interviewing him. But following the inverted pyramid through the article, it seems those interviews as currently presented don't produce much in their own right.
Perhaps we should reach out for a Pricasso interview, he obviously has some favour for WMF if he did a knob painting of Jimbo and donated it. Or, at least sees a marketing opportunity. BRS(Talk)(Contribs)20:36, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Blood Red Sandman:I haven't had time to write an article about this topic until now. This article helps set up some background info for our Wikinews readers, and helps give our readers some context when we hopefully do a follow-up with an interview of Pricasso. -- Cirt (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The focal event here, as presented by the lede, is that he's been interviewed recently by various parties? That doesn't feel like all that strong a focus; if there were something about somebody else's exclusive that generated discussion in various fora, for example, that would would be more of a focus, but I, for one, have always been leery of a story whose focal event is somebody else getting an exclusive. The headline doesn't reflect this specific focal event. Also, there's only one source that's within the past few days, whereas we generally ask for two sources corroborating the focal event — sometimes we've been known to let one of the two testify that it was going to happen while the other testifies that it actually did happen, but as best I can tell that doesn't seem to apply here.
I'm in agreement with BRS's observations, that the newsworthiness is shaky and that an interview could work.
Although it's sensible to want a piece to establish background, we'd need a newsworthy focus.
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.
The focal event here, as presented by the lede, is that he's been interviewed recently by various parties? That doesn't feel like all that strong a focus; if there were something about somebody else's exclusive that generated discussion in various fora, for example, that would would be more of a focus, but I, for one, have always been leery of a story whose focal event is somebody else getting an exclusive. The headline doesn't reflect this specific focal event. Also, there's only one source that's within the past few days, whereas we generally ask for two sources corroborating the focal event — sometimes we've been known to let one of the two testify that it was going to happen while the other testifies that it actually did happen, but as best I can tell that doesn't seem to apply here.
I'm in agreement with BRS's observations, that the newsworthiness is shaky and that an interview could work.
Although it's sensible to want a piece to establish background, we'd need a newsworthy focus.
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.
