Jump to content

Wikinews:Featured article candidates/archive/9

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Archive 8 |
Archive 9


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.

Video, lots of pictures, original reporting. --Brian McNeil / talk 17:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)reply

Comments

Votes


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.

Here's a blast from the past. I'll note my attendance, and significant contribution to the article, but think we could do with cultivating a new Brussels-centric bunch of contributors. --Brian McNeil / talk 06:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)reply

Comments

Votes


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.

Over an hour of audio. "Cover the news event comprehensively, and without rambling". (I reviewed it.) --Pi zero (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2014 (UTC)reply

Comments

Votes


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.

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)reply

Comments

Votes


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.

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)reply

Comments

Votes



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.

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

Comments

Votes




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.

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)reply

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)reply
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)reply
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)reply

Votes


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.

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)reply

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)reply

Votes

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

  • 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)reply
  • 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)reply

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'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)reply

Comments

Votes


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.

Self-nomming an interview; it's always a good sign when scientists tell you you've asked a good question about their work. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 21:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)reply

Comments

Votes


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.

Still hugely topical. "How long do you think the cat and mouse game will continue?" "Until one of two things happen: The authorities realize they can't enforce laws that require monitoring all private communications, especially given the large international level of grassroots support, or [they] actually start monitoring all private communications." Well then. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply

Comments

Votes


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.

As with the indie horror interview, we often forget that our mission statement includes entertaining content. It's interesting to look at this afresh years down the line.

"I don't enjoy cheating in games, and to me buying items with real money seems like cheating -- except worse, since it actually costs money." And yet microtransactions have become depressingly familiar, even to those like myself who have never paid one. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply

Comments

Votes



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.

This is as cool, and interesting, as it was when it was still, well, news. Prime science reporting. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply

Comments

Votes


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.

To borrow the reviewer's remark from talk; "a hefty undertaking all around, and[...] worth it" - @Pi zero:. Excellent and thorough OR, highly collaborative, and the best coverage of anybody anywhere. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 15:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)reply

Comments

Votes


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.

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)reply

Comments

I'm confused by the question. Is to much information to much or is information not enough? Thanks!- David Davidson —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Forthe1789usconstitution (talkcontribs) 00:48, 14 May 2015

That seems, to me, to be a false dichotomy. What question are you referring to? BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 20:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)reply

Votes

  • Support as author and nominator. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 17:01, 7 February 2015 (UTC)reply
  • Support Good infographics and use of quote boxes. --Bddpaux (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)reply
  • Support as reviewer. Which is to say, reviewer for much of it; the article history shows, as remarked, an intense process (note the post-publish edits with edit summaries telling the reviewer where to find info in the sources; post-publish revision review can easily turn into a tangled mess, and didn't this time). My initial review published an article less than half the size of the archived version. Imo a good role model for breaking disaster coverage. --Pi zero (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)reply

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.

Wikinews has a fine tradition of featuring excellent photoessays, which I began cultivating back in 2009(!) with photos from '06. As this piece shows, we've come a long way by 2015. Clearly on a par with the other featured photoessays, excellent though they are. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 11:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)reply

Comments

Votes



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.

I'm a fan of the combination effect of this article; some light-hearted entertainment, and some rather more serious thought. Lively would be the word. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 01:20, 22 October 2015 (UTC)reply

Comments

Votes


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.

I'm delighted photoessays continue to crop up at exceptional quality. I'm a little disappointed a few images aren't captioned, but I don't think that alone should stop an otherwise breathtaking piece from being featured. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 22:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)reply

Comments

Votes


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.

Really fascinating. A solid and informative read. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 22:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)reply

Comments

Votes


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.

This article deserves to be a featured article! Agastya Chandrakant ⚽️ 🏆 🎾 🎬 🎤 📰 17:25, 7 March 2016 (UTC)reply

Comments

OK....looks like this is a 'pass' for FA status....now, let's see if I can make that happen! --Bddpaux (talk) 18:42, 18 August 2016 (UTC)reply

Votes


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.

The whole point in writing this one was to basically square off to the mainstream media and try to produce the definitive article on the case. Believe it or not there's even more detail could have stood to go in there, but I still think I wrote up the most comprehensive article out there. BRS (Talk) (Contribs) 16:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)reply

Comments

Votes



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.