Wikinews:Featured article candidates

Shortcut:
WN:FAC

Archives 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8

This is where the Wikinews community selects new featured articles.

Featured articles should, at a minimum:

• Have pictures (they should make a good visual impression)
• Be well-written
• Cover the news event comprehensively

In addition, we should try to choose articles with these features:

• Good collaboration
• Quality original material
• Better coverage than mainstream outlets

Add suggestions for new articles below. If you are the author, or an author, please include a note that it is your own work. Please justify why you think an article should be featured.

• Nominations are discussed for a minimum of seven days. Please discuss each nomination and try to come to a consensus before listing an article on Wikinews:Featured articles. Please add {{FAC}} to listed articles' talk pages, and add {{FA}} to successful candidates. See the archive directory for past nominations.

• There is no upper limit to how long a nomination can be open. Newly-featured articles are often featured on social media, so it is advisable not to close more than two or three in quick succession. Likewise, multiple articles in a single nomination are discouraged.

• Note: Do not nominate articles that have not yet been archived.

Candidates

Consider voting on previous nominations when you add an article to this list!

Please list new candidates at the top.

[OPEN] AirAsia jet vanishes over Indonesia, 162 missing

Dropping in some synthesis of mine, which highlights an intense collaboration to make for a good report on major breaking news. There's no sensible way so many sources on such a large article could have been reviewed had it been submitted in its final condition. What ultimately emerged captures the confusion and emergency scrambling that follows a major disaster unfolding. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• Support as author and nominator. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

[OPEN] Glasgow cannabis enthusiasts celebrate 'green' on city green

It's rare for us to manage to get two accredited reporters on the scene, and I'd like to think the result of BRS and I working on this one made sure it's up to FA standards. Most of the photos are Iain's, with his penchant for photographing police officers rather evident. That it was also seized upon by the Signpost over a single word as another reason to demand the project be closed. Bonus!

I'd also like to encourage people to go through the open FACs below. Many of them need either an uninvolved (non-contributing) admin to decide if they're good to promote, or a vote or two more to put them clearly over the line. In the past I've closed and promoted one per week, re-posting it onto Facebook Sunday AM (UK time); this gets high visibility, since it's a rest day for many. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Comments

• I'd really like to see this given clear consensus before closing. With two accredited reporters working on it, and likely to vote for promotion, that'll mean more comments/votes than I think we'd usually be happy with. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• I don't believe we've ever had two accredited reporters on the one scene before, though I could be wrong. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 16:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• Support as co-contributor, and nominator. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:12, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support as co-contributor. It took me a while to settle on this one; ultimately, it's the photos that make it once again. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 09:53, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
• Support as reviewer. From the text it's a sound report; as BRS notes, the pictures — with their captions — elevate it to featurable level. --Pi zero (talk) 12:12, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

[OPEN] UK media apparently conflict with Scots law in Mikaeel Kular case

Great investigative OR imo. This was a story where the mainstream were left in the dust; I don't think anybody else covered it - probably because they were all doing it. There was collaboration with Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) obtaining legal expertise that backed us up, although it was placed in a folow-up. And that was about our investigation being noticed in high places. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• Support as nominator/correspondent. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support As reviewer, it was deeply satisfying to be involved in helping this piece happen. Featured articles should stand as examples of what news articles should aspire to, and this does. --Pi zero (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is why we do Original research. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support This article serves as an excellent example of what we should strive for when writing original research. A thoroughly good article. —Mikemoral♪♫ 11:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

---

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews Kristian Hanson, producer-director of indie horror film 'Sledge'

A little shorter than other FA interviews, but we often forget that our mission statement includes entertaining content. Best example I've seen of that last in a long time, I for one thoroughly enjoyed this. --BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Votes

• Support as nom. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support having reread this, what BRS said. --Pi zero (talk) 18:43, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support as reading it put a smile on my face. A lighthearted look at making a film on next-to-no budget. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support An amusing article and a good example of entertainment OR content. —Mikemoral♪♫ 10:49, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

---

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikinews interviews specialists on Russian intervention in Ukraine

Stunned this wasn't already nom'd. Priceless snapshot of a major world event. --BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Votes

• Support as nom. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Snapshot, in very deed. --Pi zero (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support Yep, we need more of these article types....loads of 'little' interviews, focused on one topic; I liked this one. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Whilst the mainstream seemed to be toying with the idea of starting a new cold war, this is mature reporting on a complex issue. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

---

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• Promoted BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Edinburgh's 'Million Mask March' flies distinctly Scottish colours

I seem to be putting in photoessays rather than lots of verbiage these days. It's the easy way to cover stories where I have strong opinions on the topic being covered, and this is a story the mainstream didn't want to acknowledge (The BBC claimed there were a couple of hundred for this march, judge for yourself from the photos). --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• As Bddpaux points out, the reference to "the referendum" wants context. There is at least one, possibly two, ways we could mitigate this without crossing the archiving policy.

• Wikilink "referendum result" to Scottish independence. Wikilinks are generally treated as within-bounds for archived articles, since they aren't the article content. By the same token, though, Wikinews articles are supposed to be self-contained, which isn't fully addressed by a wikilink even though it's local.
• Add a Related news link to Scotland says 'No' in independence referendum. This would do more to address the problem, but I'm ambivalent about whether it's within-bounds. Adding or changing Sister links is generally considered in-bounds, but I'm somehow more hesitant about External links or Related news.

--Pi zero (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've added Related news to the archive before. Would've immediately done so again but for the comparison to External links. Then again, at least some ELs still feel okay. For example, adding a link to an interviewee's website would be both reasonable and doesn't feel like a content edit to me. imo the related piece can and should be added; would appreciate backed up by somebody on that. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of opposition I've added the related link and will close this nom. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:36, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Votes

• Support as author and nominator. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support At least equal to our other featured photoessays, which seems to be a rapidly growing collection. BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support --Pi zero (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Support, but only barely. I'm not from Scotland, so I struggled a bit to understand, "...activist numbers had clearly been swelled by the referendum result." About which referendum am I reading?? Maybe that could've been wikified or maybe a link-box to a Wikipedia article could've been dropped in at bottom. I think FA articles should have a VERY LOW confusion rating for international readers. Great array of photos, though!! --Bddpaux (talk) 19:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

• It seems clear that this article is not going to achieve the consensus needed to promote BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Noosa win 2014 Sunshine Coast Rugby Union premiership

The best visual documenting of the 2014 grand final. Definitly the best article I've written this year. --RockerballAustralia contribs 07:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Comments

• Comment I like this, but I think it's the presentation lets it down. You've a handful of video clips "hidden away" in a photoessay-style slideshow where those should be up-front and pushed at folks. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 13:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Votes

Support as nominator and author --RockerballAustralia contribs 07:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose, sadly; I liked it, but I don't see this mid-size photoessay as up to featured standards. (I did use one of the images to round-out the OR overview we're doing this year, though.) BRS ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 17:12, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, but just barely. I struggled a bit with the VERY Australian lingo, but after about the 4th read, I began to 'get' it. Yes, it's an OK article, it really is. But, I see little that pulls it up to FA status. Sorry. --Bddpaux (talk) 19:35, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.