User talk:Habst/World Athletics Indoor Championships concludes in Glasgow with new world records and significant wins

Review of revision 4769533 [Not ready]

Revision 4769533 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: This lede isn't particularly strong. Ideally, the lede directly addresses the essential questions about the focal event. I think this one would be stronger if it more directly enumerated the "what". See, something like the lede here is more like what I mean, although probably adding mention of all of the victories that occurred at this championship would overburden the lede. You might have the focal event be the second day of the championships — with any lede-worthy material describing the first day being placed further down the inverted pyramid within the lede. Also, note all facts present in the headline need to also be present in the lede. Here, the article doesn't get to mentioning the world records set at this event until the second paragraph. Generally speaking, there is a lot of analysis here, such as it being surprising to see world records set here, or vaguely-attributed claims of a record being considered stronger, and sensational language. As described by this essay, at en.wn an article has to stick to just the facts. It does seem to me it's common in sports journalism to use both of these things, but. Habst: I'm sorry I don't have the time to go more in-depth than this in this review, as I'd like to. If you have questions, I can try to answer them. 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 4769533 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 07:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not ready: Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Style: Not ready: Comments by reviewer: This lede isn't particularly strong. Ideally, the lede directly addresses the essential questions about the focal event. I think this one would be stronger if it more directly enumerated the "what". See, something like the lede here is more like what I mean, although probably adding mention of all of the victories that occurred at this championship would overburden the lede. You might have the focal event be the second day of the championships — with any lede-worthy material describing the first day being placed further down the inverted pyramid within the lede. Also, note all facts present in the headline need to also be present in the lede. Here, the article doesn't get to mentioning the world records set at this event until the second paragraph. Generally speaking, there is a lot of analysis here, such as it being surprising to see world records set here, or vaguely-attributed claims of a record being considered stronger, and sensational language. As described by this essay, at en.wn an article has to stick to just the facts. It does seem to me it's common in sports journalism to use both of these things, but. Habst: I'm sorry I don't have the time to go more in-depth than this in this review, as I'd like to. If you have questions, I can try to answer them. 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.

Addressed review comments

@Heavy Water, thank you for leaving the review — I've addressed the comments and have submitted for re-review.

• Lede addresses essential questions:
  1. What: Three world records were set at the 2024 USA Track and Field Indoor Championships, mentioned in the first sentence in the lede.
  2. Where: Location mentioned in first sentence.
  3. When: Dates mentioned in first sentence.
  4. How: The indoor track and field sport concept is described in the following lede paragraphs, per inverted pyramid format.
  5. Why: Olympic and Worlds qualification motivations are described in lede paragraphs.
  6. Who: Various significant athletes are described in the article body, encouraged by WN:5Ws.
• All references to "surprising", "stronger", or other sensational language I could find were removed and replaced with neutral language.

Also, I wanted to respond to this edit summary from Special:Diff/4769533:

there would be a separate section for sister project links, if that's all this is intended to be, but in any event it's easily reachable from 2024 USA Indoor Track and Field Championships, which is linked in this en.wn article's body

To clarify, this isn't intended to just be a sister project link at all — it's intended to stand alone as an en.wn article, complementing the other Wikinews coverage of world events.

Thank you. --Habst (talk) 12:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Huh? No, I was referring to the link to the en.wp article. I said "if that's all this is intended to be" just to seek confirmation you were only providing the link as what Wikipedians would call an interwiki, not citing it as a source (Wikipedia cannot be used as a source here since it is not considered trustworthy). Heavy Water (talk) 04:48, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Heavy Water, it looks like I misinterpreted that edit summary, my apologies. Yes that link was just an interwiki list, and I have no issue with your change, I have left it and won't link to en.wp like that in the References section. What do you think about the new version of the article, would you be able to review it again today as time is of the essence before the article goes stale? Thank you, --Habst (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

No worries. I can start reviewing it now. Heavy Water (talk) 15:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Much appreciated, thank you! I've noted the extra categorization, using __NOTOC__, and the {{Image source}} and {{Athletics}} templates, will definitely use those in the future. --Habst (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

@Heavy Water, I've added the {{image}} template to all of the other images in the article per the example at Special:Diff/4769705. Is there anything else I can do to help? I saw the {{under review}} tag was removed in Special:Diff/4769813, do you think you could help complete the review today? Thank you for everything you've done so far. --Habst (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

@Heavy Water, I have re-anchored the event of the article to be the team roster announcement, which happened on Feb 22. Do you think you can look at the article, or suggest anything I can do to make the review easier? Thank you for your review so far. --Habst (talk) 14:03, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Two_world_records_fall_at_the_World_Athletics_Indoor_Championships&curid=2988464&diff=4770788&oldid=4770778

https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Two_world_records_fall_at_the_World_Athletics_Indoor_Championships&curid=2988464&diff=4770788&oldid=4770778

A quick review would save the article? BigKrow (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi @BigKrow, while I would certainly appreciate a review, I respect the reviewer's reasoning for reverting to {{review}} because "it would save the article" isn't a valid reason for using {{quick review}} as I understand. Also, when you are linking to a diff, it's easier to read the Special:Diff/4770788 syntax rather than pasting a bare URL especially as a section header. Thanks, --Habst (talk) 22:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Stale

Unfortunately, it has been seven days since this article was last edited and the most recent source provided was published ten days ago. The article is now considered stale. More details on timeliness are in the following guideline: Wikinews:Newsworthiness#Freshness

Also note for future articles; "Sources should be listed chronologically, from the most recent to the oldest." Wikinews:Style_guide#Citing_your_references

I know you tried hard to get this published and I hope to see you write more.

Michael.C.Wright (^Talk/_Published) 14:13, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's leave this up....

...for the next 72 hours, please. I'm trying to mentor the original contributor on gatwicking.--Bddpaux (talk) 18:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)