Wikinews:Featured article candidates/archive/1

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1
| Archive 2

I disagree with Zanimum's below nomination, preferring this article over an interview that a certain percentage would just skip. The intro on the Sharpton interview is well done, it grounds anyone who knows a little bit about Thanksgiving in a family environment where you've discussed some political issue or personality and just come up with questions. Then it moves on to putting these and other questions to the person in question, and they're good compelling answers. It is long, the only thing making it difficult to read is finding the time - uninterrupted. --Brian McNeil / talk 16:01, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm a fan of tons of David Shankbone's articles, and he's had "bigger" names interviewed (that Rep. Pres. candidate), this interview subject seems to be the most lasting of relevance. The questions are well-worded and NPOV, and the set-up is a great lead to the article. It can be refered to for years to come, and I don't doubt that it will still be of relevance. -- Zanimum 18:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The most famous article on Wikinews, ever. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 08:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should be the first FA! It is of high quality and had an amazing amount of detail. It uncovered a major scandal and is the most publicity wikinews has had. —Symode09 06:09, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, when you search google for london out of free content resualts, we're #1. Bawolff 03:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Touche, it is not the most well known article however it is (IMHO) the best article because, it uncovers a huge scandal and, shows the standard of work on wikinews —Symode09 02:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles are great and deserving of featuredness. Bawolff 03:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice lengthy article, good use of quote lefts and lots of logos.

Come on it's complete copyright violation!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This simply has to get the FA template. It is mostly Original Reporting, it is a collaborative effort from contributors around the globe, and I believe one of the best showcases of the potential Wikinews has. --Brian McNeil / talk 00:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sat and watched this match to give my own match report. It seems there isn't a sporting featured article. I have posted this here because I think that my report should become a FA because it's in-depth, categorised, neat and has pictures. I would like to hear your feedback. Celticfan383 00:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, lines like "Celtic were very attacking from the start of extra time" are unclear, and there are no photos or evidence of OR. Sorry, but thanks for the article! Sherurcij 04:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were images on there but they were removed... Unsure why. Sorry for the confusion. I will add some pictures in a moment. ńăŧħăń - ŧĕẍŧ 16:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I sat and watched this match to give my own match report. It seems there isn't a sporting featured article. I have posted this here because I think that my report should become a FA because it's in-depth, categorised, neat and has pictures. I would like to hear your feedback. Celticfan383 00:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, lines like "Celtic were very attacking from the start of extra time" are unclear, and there are no photos or evidence of OR. Sorry, but thanks for the article! Sherurcij 04:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There were images on there but they were removed... Unsure why. Sorry for the confusion. I will add some pictures in a moment. ńăŧħăń - ŧĕẍŧ 16:44, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two most famous Wikinews article ever. DragonFire1024 (Talk to the Dragon) 08:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like Steven below me, just interested to know what everyone thinks about whether this meets all the FAC criteria. Self-nomination. Daniel 08:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Looks professional, well-written and elaborate, well referenced and all... but doesn't strike me as having the X-factor... Maybe a bit too encyclopaedic, I removed some overlinking (to words like hotel etcetera). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to know what everyone thinks (self-nomination). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - I'd like to see a little more explanation of what is going on here. OK, squatters are in this place and have been there for 7 years, now they are being evicted, Opus Dei owns the location. This much I got. But why is it happening now? Did Opus Dei let them stay all these years or did they buy it from previous owners who were more accepting of squatters. I ask these questions due to the similarity with the situation in Copenhagen, Denmark, over the Ungdomshuset (youth house) which caused riots earlier this year. --SVTCobra 00:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I felt reluctant to make changes to the article so late. I'll take that as an oppose.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the one image gallery seems better-suited to have been made a Commons-link and some quotes from either the police or squatters would've been a nice touch, but it's got some contextual and stellar photography, and is one of the best-written articles - a concise opening, a pithy closing and lots of information between. Sherurcij 01:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Grammar and apostrophe problems with this sentence: "At a students house, which according to the squatters belongs to Opus Dei, the protesters threw paint, and a window got broken." - students should be student's, and "a window got broken" isn't the best way to phrase that. But the text probably shouldn't be changed this long after publication. Cirt - (talk) 11:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is very detailed, well-written, and provides a sufficient amount of pictures, though I wish that I could've added a damage pic. I hope I'm not sounding to biased, but I'm just proud of myself, because the article that I write on wikipedia aren't normally as good as this. I can Support this, right? Icelandic Hurricane 01:28, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, good coverage. Talk page is interesting.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't normally nominate my own writing, but this was an excellent story, great coverage and has excellent pictures. It is also Original Reporting. DragonFire1024 12:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's because it's a local story, but if you look at the criteria it meets them all. But hey, gotta go with your guts!--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:07, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the images, I was far away at the time it started and I got as many as I could as I got closer and saved the best ones. When I did get close, although I was allowed to cross "the police line," I was still held back a bit becasue it was a very dangerous situation. I would have loved to have gotten better images, But nonetheless I love the ones I did get. The close ones were blinded by a lot of smoke, and bad lighting. If I have time, and its not raining in the next few days, I will go take "aftermath" pictures. DragonFire1024 05:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't misunderstand me, I think you did good work, I just think the camera you are using is limiting the quality of your pictures.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree to an extent..this was just overall bad lighting and a lot of smoke...I did not get you wrong :) DragonFire1024 10:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put a lot of work into keeping it up-to-date and relevant, and figure it might be a good feature of what the sports department can do when we put some elbow grease into our work.

I (w:en:User:Béka) think this article is really good, it covers the subject detailed and in-depth.

Although this article was written on March 6, I just came across it now. I think it deserves some consideration as a FAC. It has original reporting, with excellent supporting notes. It is well written, nicely formatted, and has great photos. Jcart1534 12:36, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, very comprehensive.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 12:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support - A very timely topic about the tribunal that treats the topic with tempered detail.--RHakeem 05:02, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent coverage.--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A great deal of work has gone into this piece of original reporting, there are lots of pictures and our coverage is probably better than most of the mainstream media. I believe this meets the criteria of showing Wikinews at its best.

Well written, fairly in-depth, has pictures.

Belive it meets all the requirements listed above, in addition its an unusual and interesting read. (I know this process really is not used, but i think this represents one of the directions in which wikinews could go/grow into, and its a good example of it.) Bawolff 02:54, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found this article to be very interesting, informative, and well-written. I'm sure that it meets all requirements of a featured article. TheVault 03:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So a bunch of mental people decide to go to a convention and form a giant yiff pile, big deal. 07:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
note: anons are general not eligible to vote. Bawolff 07:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that as much as furry fans having sex with one another would have been breaking news, I neither saw nor heard of such a "yiff pile" at the convention, therefore it was not included in the story. GreenReaper 15:44, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Staying anon for my own sanity I must express actual rage that this be considered to represent WikiNews in ANY way. With so much of real substance happening in the world impacting millions of people, this deserves nothing but disdain for taking up space.

So then why aren't you writing about these things of "real substance"? So many people spend their time complaining about major events being ignored, but then don't do anything about it by covering them. We were established with the concept that we'd report on both news events of monumental importance, and news events that traditionally get shafted for coverage. FC is, as I understand it, the ultimate Detroit Auto Show of this interest. It deserves to be covered. Any original reporting at all deserves to be applauded. -- Zanimum 22:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, that's Anthrocon, which gets a little more media attention. But FC is almost as big, and doesn't appear to get any, which makes original reporting more important for it. I've done similar things (but somewhat more informally) for MFF in 05 and 06. GreenReaper 01:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article provides a welcome break from all of the "real substance" news (war, controversy, politics, or disasters). It is great to read about something else in the news for once. TheVault 15:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just a heads up, featured articles don't really get any more attention then normal articles (which is the main reason this procedure doesn't happen very often) Bawolff 03:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alas. Well, at least I read all the current ones . . .
Still, if what you say is true, perhaps they should? At WikiFur, our best work is something that we're proud of - we keep it around, to show others. Indeed, we make a point of doing so to visitors - because, you know, then they might actually decide to join in and do something similar. :-) Indeed, most of our front page is featured content in some way or another. GreenReaper 03:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but you're an entirely different type of project then we are. Furwiki (to my understanding) in more encyclopedic in nature and specialized. Its not really important for it to be extremely current. However, we have to have things new. No one in general cares about yesterday's news that much. Bawolff 04:03, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is true - to an extent. It's partly because Wikinews appears to be focusing on "hard" news - while I can see the reasons for this, I think it limits things quite a bit. But our featured content is not just for the benefit of our readers; it's for those who would be contributors but don't know it yet. A really good selection of pieces can inspire people to write their own to join it, even if they've never done anything similar before. I don't think you really "get" Wikipedia until you've seen a featured article, and I think the same is likely to be true of Wikinews. GreenReaper 04:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is a refreshing perspective GreenReaper. Magazine-like content is good stuff and is something like what I find this featured article candidate to be. "Hard" news goes at a fast and furious pace, and from that perspective, after 2 or 3 days, I beieve an article is firewood. It makes me somewhat of a bigot, by blabbering here, to say that I would rather see community time spent in what was proudly reported at Wikinews in the media. -Edbrown05 04:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you (GreenReaper), but at the moment, I don't see how we can really promote it further. Although its not exactly time sensitive, we can't just keep it on the main page forever. Bawolff 04:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm thinking beyond this particular article. :-) How many people were surprised to discover that Wikinews even had a collection of featured articles? How do you get there from the main page? Where are people meant to go when they look for examples of good work to emulate?
Wikinews does really well on showing readers what's "latest" - to an extent that other wikis could do well to learn from - but it seems to fall down on "best." On professional news sites perhaps this doesn't matter all that much, in part because people who write for such sites tend to know what they're doing already, but if people come here and all they see are the average stories then that's probably all they'll be inspired to write, if they do so at all. People do better with lots of good examples laid out in front of them. It's a hassle - I know, because I'm usually the one who ends up doing it at WikiFur - but presenting an archive of the best of your work has multiple benefits that make it well worth the time involved. If nothing else, it's something the Wikinews community can look at and be proud of, and that's no small advantage. GreenReaper 05:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify that - it falls down on a collection of "long term best." This article is possibly the best on Wikinews, but how many new readers will even know it exists? GreenReaper 05:37, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a lot (Its our most popular story [1] ) However I do see your point. People should be able to see examples of us at our best. Bawolff 05:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]