User talk:William S. Saturn/2016

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

NYT[edit]

I have trouble accessing NYT articles; they're paywalled for me. --Pi zero (talk) 12:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which said, I just tried the first listed NYT article and it worked for me; first time in years I've actually seen an NYT article. So perhaps we'll just have to see (I won't try further experiments, in case there's some sort of quota involved). --Pi zero (talk) 12:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could e-mail the contents to you if need be. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We'll see how it goes. (I'm getting paranoid from having spent too long with everyone out to get me.) --Pi zero (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikinews interviews three figures from Donald Trump's political past[edit]

Published. Had no problem with the NYT sources after all, though a couple of the other sources said things that made me suspect I'd only be allowed five-or-so article accesses before they'd paywall me. Haven't seen much from you this election cycle, though it's occurred to me you've usually concentrated on the off-beat candidates, and this time around the inmates are in charge of the asylum. Anyway, I quite enjoyed this one. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 02:38, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I appreciate it as always. Hopefully I'll be more active in the next few months. I still have some ideas for stories.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NYT?[edit]

Just to note, the nyt source you just linked on your sandbox is paywalled for me. --Pi zero (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I won't necessarily use it. It's more of a reminder than anything. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:24, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
/me waves. ; --Pi zero (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Back on the campaign trail[edit]

In fairness, RockerballAustralia has a valid point: we should find a way to inflect the article form this election cycle so the headline makes clear that it's about the campaign trail in the US. I'm not sure how best to work that into the headline form. Have you any thoughts on this? --Pi zero (talk) 17:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How about "On the campaign trail in the USA, May 2016" ? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I start working my way through the sources for this, I notice that the Politics1 citation is actually a news feed rather than a specific article, and you didn't note anything specific in your article as coming from there. Was that by any chance something you had on hand to draw from but didn't use? --Pi zero (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the Summary section that is not cited inline is cited to the news feed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know if you'd like for me to cite those inline as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:30, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noted. --Pi zero (talk)
  • I've been tackling the summary this evening (alas that I haven't gotten further sooner), and there are gaps in what I was able to verify. I've left a comment on the article talk page identifying which bits of the first two paragraphs I didn't find; I haven't gotten to the last two paragraphs yet. --Pi zero (talk) 02:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scoop[edit]

I've just logged into scoop, which worked for me — there's a link to the webmail on wikinewsie dot org — but I didn't find anything recent from you there. Are you sure (this might sound like an inane question maybe, but heck, I make mistakes like this) are you sure you sent to scoop at wikinewsie dot org? Are you able to check your wikinewsie mail through the link from wikinewsie dot org? --Pi zero (talk) 22:27, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't sent it because I wasn't sure it worked since I couldn't login. Apparently I wasn't using the proper login. I now can login and I see that it works. I have sent them. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the campaign trail in the USA, May 2016[edit]

Well, it's out the door. Four years ago, I was much more able to pull all-nighters; this review was more incremental, which is presumably part of why it took me so long to finish it (though perhaps to some extent I'm just rusty; one can hope). But this seems like a good year to be writing articles giving coverage to off-beat candidates on a news project specializing in neutrality. :-)  --Pi zero (talk) 14:09, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, thanks for the review. I was late on this so I'll try to get next month's finished sooner.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom election 2016[edit]

As a current Arb, would you be willing to stand for ArbCom again this year? If you don't wish to nominate yourself, I would be happy to nominate you. --Pi zero (talk) 01:38, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

June campaign trail[edit]

I'm making a big push to finish this today (I lack words to describe how frustrated I am that I didn't finish it sooner).

Do you have any thoughts on how to handle the paragraph about how the new UK PM was expected to be chosen by October? --Pi zero (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"The selection was thought likely be made in October, just a month ahead of the US presidential election." - This sounds good. Needs a "to" before "be made in October." I think this will suffice since I don't want to get into too much detail about the new Prime Minister since that will be covered in the July edition.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. 158 hours from submit to publish, and a bit more than 24 from publish to the start of the Republican national convention. I can't decide which is more appalling. I'll have to do much, much better next month; plenty of time to catch up on sleep before then. :-P  --Pi zero (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hopefully this next time I'll submit it sooner.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This.......[edit]

Wikinews interviews Steve Burke, U.S. Democratic Party presidential candidate is now an FA! Congrats! --Bddpaux (talk) 18:45, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't even realize it was nominated.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:49, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

July campaign trail[edit]

I'm appalled how late I let this slip. The only thing left (I think) is the Politics1 feed. (The only thing outside the summary I haven't dealt with yet is the sentence "Polls from before and after the speech, showed Cruz's approval rating among Republicans fall from 60% to 33%.") I'd been toying with the idea of staying up all night, but I don't think I have it in me to start on Politics1, so I'll turn in early (it's only 2am here) and hope to get an early start in the morning.

I plan to make a massive push as soon as next month's is submitted, for a vastly shorter turnover (though I've not forgotten about the best laid schemes o' mice and men). --Pi zero (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to finish the August one sooner. I've been kind of slow at writing these this time. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having trouble. Lots of stuff in the DNC section I can't find. I've already cut a bunch of stuff (each of those cuts represents at least half an hour of fruitless hunting), and then find myself with no verification at all for the entire important two-sentence passage
Sanders closed out the first night. He expressed disappointment in the outcome of the primaries but heralded the "great accomplishments" of his movement and urged his followers to get behind Clinton.
I'm at a loss what to do about this; I'm finding it rather unimaginable to not-ready this big article with lots of OR, better than a week and a half after it was submitted, over this stuff; but clearly I can't cut all of that, either. The only thing I'm sure of is I need some sleep for decisions this big. --Pi zero (talk) 07:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'll find the sources. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keeping in mind, the one part of the article I haven't fully vetted yet is the DNC beyond the second paragraph (and of course I had trouble with the last two sentences of the second paragraph). --Pi zero (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like Politics1 deleted everything from before July 28. I'll find other sources.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fwiw: I discovered when I was reviewing the May article that if one uses the scroll provided on the page you cite, one can only get about a month's worth of the feed, maybe a bit less. So instead I use the link "view on twitter" at the lower right of the scroll box; as a result, at this moment, I have about thirty to forty separate browser tabs open (in a dedicated window) with all of the feed from sometime during the day on June 30 until a few days into August. My difficulty has been that I still couldn't find things. Which I imagine is in part me not looking for the right thing, or missing it, or me failing to look in some other listed source that I should have thought of. But the upshot is admittedly the same — stuff I have trouble finding to verify. --Pi zero (talk) 18:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added a few sources and so I think everything is covered. Let me know if there's anything else. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's out the door. Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 04:29, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:44, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

August campaign trail[edit]

Whenever an August campaign trail becomes ready for review (god willin' and the crick don't rise), I mean to make it a top priority to get it out the door quickly ("quickly" to be defined). I'm thinking ahead to a conjectural October campaign trail and how desirable it would be to get that one out the door prior to the second Tuesday of the following month. --Pi zero (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little behind. Hopefully I'll be done by the end of the week.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you ran behind the schedule you were hoping for, and I'm behind what I was hoping for; but I think I've done everything except the news feed, so I may finish today UTC (and probably wouldn't miss that by more than a few hours). I've been having trouble accessing the list you sent to scoop; some sort of data format compatibility problem. It may make sense for me to borrow the use of my mother's desktop, which for some reason can access the file whereas my laptop can't. At any rate, I have have to run errands in the morning, so I'm turning in now and might not get back to the review for eleven or twelve hours. --Pi zero (talk) 05:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all your work. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Published. --Pi zero (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

September/October campaign trails[edit]

I'm really hoping once you submit this one I can get rapid turnover on it.

Do you mean to get the last one published before election day? If so, it occurs to me it might be useful to start writing parts of the summary (at least) before the end of this month. --Pi zero (talk) 22:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I plan to begin on it immediately. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:36, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I know I won't be able to do too awfully much on it tonight, but I mean to get a good start on it tonight anyway, and then really dive in tomorrow. --Pi zero (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'On the campaign trail in the USA, September 2016'[edit]

That's gotta be a record on the number of sources!! Geez!! Wow!!!-Bddpaux (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just eyeballing it, I think July had more.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
:-D --Pi zero (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Btw, I'm not as far along as I'd hoped to be by now, but well ahead of where I was at this time-since-submission last month. And of course now starting to listen to the debate.) --Pi zero (talk) 01:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

October campaign trail[edit]

If it happens, perchance, to become feasible for me to do an anticipatory review of part of the article — if the text some part is probably mostly stable and all the sourcing documentation is available — let me know, and perhaps I could get a leg up on things. Just a thought. --Pi zero (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to start looking over the summary. There should be no problem if you make further edits; I've snarfed a copy of the current revision, with its timestamp, so I can separately examine changes.

I'll assume, for now, that all embedded sources will find their way into the Sources section. --Pi zero (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. They will. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:40, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a verification problem with the following passage in your summary of the debate:

Clinton addressed the content of her paid speeches, arguing her comment about open trade and borders referred to energy policy.

After rereading the entire transcript of the debate, I only found her addressing the "two-faced" thing; I did not see anything where she addressed a comment about open trade and borders, let alone claimed it was about energy policy. Am I missing it in the transcript (and if so, where), or... what? --Pi zero (talk) 01:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I looked it up and it was said during the October 19 debate. So the passage should be removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have just beens struggling with subtle neutrality issues over disclosing things readers should know about where various stuff was coming from. I found the Project Veritas thing especially troubling; if I were writing that bit (which is certainly worth mentioning in a summary of the month, and one can't spend lots of words because, well, summary), I'd likely sweat over how to provide readers what they should know about what kind of salt grain to take PV's stuff with, but of course as a reviewer I sweat even more because if I intervene at all it has to be very minimal. I made this edit; perhaps you'll have thoughts on how to improve on that. --Pi zero (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The change looks good.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rather worried about this. I've tried to apply the Politics1 feed to the first paragraph of the summary (now that I've finished with all the embedded sources through the summary), but I batted very close to zero.

  • When you said "The politics of polling became a campaign issue", were you referring to Trump's repeated claims throughout the month that the polls are rigged/fake/whatever, or something else?
Yes. It's mentioned later on also.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Third party candidate[...] Stein began to slide in the polls, which commonly occurs among such candidates."
I could see Johnson slide in the aggregrate graph, but it wasn't at all clear that Stein did so, and although I did take a look at the October 2012 campaign trail, if there was anything about that in it, I didn't find it.
That part can be removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "However, in statewide polling, independent presidential candidate Evan McMullin, who named political consultant Mindy Finn of Texas as his running mate in October, took the lead in a few polls in his home-state of Utah. Early voting began in multiple states in October as well."
Didn't find any of that. I saw a number of polls in the Politics1 feed that had him a close second in Utah.

--Pi zero (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] - it's one poll, I'll reword. [2] - Mindy Finn. [3] - Early voting.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also didn't find:
"Kaine spoke in an aggressive manner and often interrupted Pence, who remained relatively calm throughout."
--Pi zero (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[4] - In AP analysis.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(fwiw, I've only the last paragraph of the summary still to go) --Pi zero (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the sentence. It's not necessary to the summary.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All my remaining verification difficulties in the summary:

  • "As in the second debate, there was no handshake between the candidates before. Unlike the second, there was no handshake afterward."
No handshake at the beginning of the second debate, Handshake at end of the second debate, YouTube of Third Debate at 1:07, no handshake, at 1:33:00, no handshake.
  • "Trump received criticism for referring to illegal immigrants as "bad hombres."
What criticism? He did use the term, yes, that's in the transcript.
Here's a new source I will add. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He and Clinton both attended the traditional Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner with Archbishop of New York Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan seated between them."
Seating arrangements.
Politics1 retweeted this statement. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was it particularly the bits where he was too critical of Hillary that were booed?
For example, see this tweet, Politics1 retweeted, which shows how the booing started when Trump called Clinton corrupt.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "over 50% in some states"
Politics1 retweeted this graphic.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Pi zero (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. I'm not surprised I missed the graphic, and the video clip is tbh hard to hear, but I really should have been able to find the first one, with a string search on "Dolan". --Pi zero (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To be crystal clear: I consider the current state of the summary acceptable for inclusion in a published article. --Pi zero (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Free & Equal section is finished for the most part as well. Almost the entire story comes from the video of the debate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:49, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────┘

  • I added up the ballot access for the Constitution Party including write-ins and got 447. Double-checked the numbers. Then tried subtracting the number without access from the total number of electors. --Pi zero (talk) 03:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've started listening to the debate (but have to turn in now). I suspect, but of course don't know for sure yet, that a great deal of background info in that section isn't covered by the debate itself, nor by the embedded sources (which I've looked at). Like the electoral numbers for the other two candidates, and what-all went on with the 2012 debate (including the bit about its inclusion threshold being higher). --Pi zero (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I discovered from Ballot Access News I was mistaken about the 2012 inclusion threshold and so I have corrected it. I also added some history about La Riva, which is sourced to On the campaign trail, November 2011 and [5]. I'll try to find the electoral numbers, but they are currently based on what is available on Wikipedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The electoral numbers are too difficult to verify because they are not in one single location but scattered among different Ballot Access News articles and SOS websites. Therefore, I've decided to remove the numbers from the article because they aren't necessary and disrupt the flow as well.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To the summary, I just added a list of battleground states from RealClearPolitics. I added it to the source list. I am moving the content to On the campaign trail in the USA, October 2016.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I mean to have a list for you late(r?) this morning of background stuff I haven't found yet; I may not have finished listening to the debate yet, of course, so again the list may be tentative.

I glitched momentarily over La Riva being the surrogate for the nominee in 2012 in some states because the source you (and en.wp) provided only shows she was such in one state; however, en.wp later in the sentence cites a second source showing at least one more state, so, no harm no foul.

I am, of course, pulling out all the stops from now forward; I mean to get this published today UCT come hell or high water, and hopefully if I fail at that anyway it'll be a near enough thing for me to stay at it into the evening US-time and put it to bed before going to bed myself. --Pi zero (talk) 13:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

┌─────────────┘

The Free and Equal debate section is now in an acceptable state, for my part. The only thing left on the table was whether or not Trump and Clinton were invited. I found this point a bit murky from Tobin's facebook comment quoted in the source. I resolved the question, for now, by removing their names from that sentence; the names dropped out neatly, it seems a small point.

And I'll tackle the the other sections after lunch. --Pi zero (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, there are some anomalies in the metadata on the Darryl Perry map at Commons; off hand, I see a "2014" and a "Gage Skidmore" where I wouldn't have expected to find them. --Pi zero (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Published. Thanks. --Pi zero (talk) 19:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for all the work you put in to reviewing this and all the previous articles in the series. I very much appreciate it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_S._Saturn/2016&oldid=4275150"