Wikinews talk:Story preparation/First image of supermassive black hole at Milky Way's center continues to reveal new information

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

Review of revision 4677179 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4677179 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not ready:

Comments by reviewer: Needs substantial work. Was the telescope created for this? "Smaller and more dynamic"...than what? What does it mean "previously imaged"...how is it the first-ever image, then? Minor edits for clarity can be done by reviewers—but general readability fixes are done at the development stage.

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 4677179 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 03:13, 15 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not ready:

Comments by reviewer: Needs substantial work. Was the telescope created for this? "Smaller and more dynamic"...than what? What does it mean "previously imaged"...how is it the first-ever image, then? Minor edits for clarity can be done by reviewers—but general readability fixes are done at the development stage.

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.
@JJLiu112: I've made changes per your comments. --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:02, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4677188 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4677188 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: Unfortunately, given the focal event of this story occured five days ago, it's now stale. Apologies that I didn't get to re-review this earlier.

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 4677188 of this article has been reviewed by LivelyRatification (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 00:48, 17 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: Unfortunately, given the focal event of this story occured five days ago, it's now stale. Apologies that I didn't get to re-review this earlier.

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.
@LivelyRatification: I submitted the article on May 13, just one day after the official press releases. I take it that the window for "newsworthiness" also includes the time it takes to review an article? --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:28, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ixfd64: Unfortunately, it doesn't. If you submit an article, and it takes six days for it to be reviewed, then it is still stale when it is reviewed, given that in order for stories to be "fresh", they have to be published within two-three days generally. I sympathise with your position here -- this sort of thing has happened to me before -- but there's not much I can do here, unless there are any updates you wish to refocus the story around. --LivelyRatification (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's unfortunate, but thanks for the response. In this particular case, it's probably a lost cause because there hasn't been much new information. I do plan to keep a backup copy of the draft in my user space in case it could be used as a base for a future article. --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JJLiu112, LivelyRatification: I've refocused the article based on new details from Nature today. Hope this is still fresh. --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4678691 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4678691 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not ready: Clarifications needed.

Comments by reviewer: None added.

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 4678691 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not ready: Clarifications needed.

Comments by reviewer: None added.

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.
@JJLiu112: I've added the clarifications. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4678836 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4678836 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: Sorry for so many rejections. Please remove all extraneous sources which you didn't get info from. Not sure where you got "knots" & Bouman quotes from. Also, the New Scientist article is paywalled, which is forbidden under WN:Paywall.

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 4678836 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 02:41, 30 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: Sorry for so many rejections. Please remove all extraneous sources which you didn't get info from. Not sure where you got "knots" & Bouman quotes from. Also, the New Scientist article is paywalled, which is forbidden under WN:Paywall.

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.
@JJLiu112: The statement about "knots" was from the New Scientist article. I've replaced it with a non-paywalled source. Also, could you please elaborate which sources might be extraneous? --Ixfd64 (talk) 03:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The replacement does not appear to be absolute: in particular, Bouman's remarks are not matched. --JJLiu112 (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JJLiu112: I've made some changes. Do they address your concerns? --Ixfd64 (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article is now stale, as the focal event took place over four days ago. It cannot be published. JJLiu112 (talk) 06:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JJLiu112: Fair enough. But may I ask why it took so long to review the last set of changes? All I did was replace a paywalled source and remove another source that turned out to be no longer needed. I don't see why that needs to take almost two days. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote “the replacement does not appear to be absolute” one day after your comment. JJLiu112 (talk) 07:56, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JJLiu112: I wasn't sure what that meant until I realized you mean the new source does not have the exact same information. However, over 36 hours had elapsed between my last review request and when the article was actually reviewed. Is there something that I could have done to help expedite the process? --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Review of revision 4678870 [Not ready][edit]

Revision 4678870 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not ready:
  • Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer: Stale; concerns not addressed.

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 4678870 of this article has been reviewed by JJLiu112 (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 20:28, 1 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]
  • Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Newsworthiness: Not ready:
  • Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • NPOV: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.
  • Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues.

Comments by reviewer: Stale; concerns not addressed.

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.
This should be deleted then??? Is it passed or?? BigKrow (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Abandoned?[edit]

@Ixfd64:. Is there any chance this will be revived? Or is the info so aged now, it'll be easier to start from scratch in there are new developments? Cheers, SVTCobra 18:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like any new information will be made available in the foreseeable future, so I'm not opposed to deletion. We can always request undeletion if needed. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment was the last contribution for Ixfd64 here at Wikinews since December of 2023. They have been active at Wikipedia recently, so maybe they'll see this message. Since they are okay with deletion and it's been 22 months since the most recent source was published and ten months since the last edit, I'll mark it as abandoned. There are no active users with delete permissions right now and the delete queue is quite long, so there is still time to Gatwick it. Michael.C.Wright (Talk/Published) 14:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Wikinews_talk:Story_preparation/First_image_of_supermassive_black_hole_at_Milky_Way%27s_center_continues_to_reveal_new_information&oldid=4771725"