[Posted] RD: Brahim Zniber

 Zigzig20s (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support not the most comprehensive article I've ever read but referenced and tidy. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:49, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 11:19, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] End of Rosetta mission

Articles: Rosetta (spacecraft) (talk · history · tag) and 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The space probe Rosetta ends its mission with a controlled crash into comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The European Space Agency's Rosetta spacecraft ends its mission with a controlled descent onto comet 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko
News source(s): Nature
Credits:

• Nominated by Banedon (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Hasn't happened yet, but is going to. Banedon (talk) 01:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Now that it's happened. Not 100% sure "controlled crash" is the right term - it actually descended slower than the lander did, collecting data all the way - and most sources seem to be using "descend" or "land" (although some do use "crash"). Smurrayinchester 11:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a unique event and a milestone of planetary science. I've added an altblurb, including switching to the 'controlled descent' terminology used by ESA. I've also added an image which would work at Main Page scale. Modest Genius ^talk 12:50, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oppose – If I'm not mistaken, this event was planned all along. Sca (talk) 13:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly "all along". There was no plan for what do at the end of the mission - they originally considered putting it back to sleep for five years until the next orbit. It looks the decision to land it on the comet was made some time in 2014 or so. Smurrayinchester 14:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article says it "ended its mission by landing on the comet near a pit called Deir el-Medina." I haven't read a lot about this topic, but it's not entirely clear to me whether the vehicle achieved a soft landing or was destroyed. Sca (talk) 22:02, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: BBC headline: Rosetta mission ends in comet collision. Sca (talk) 22:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now purely on article quality. I'm fine with the rational for the nomination. But there are just too many gaps in referencing in the Rosetta article. These need to corrected before this can be posted. The article on the comet has a couple of spots that could use a cite but overall I think it's good enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There has been a clear improvement in referencing. There might be a few spots still in need of a cite, but overall I think it's good enough. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support posting something related to this event, which imo is far more relevant to an encyclopedia than much of what we post here. I agree with Ad Orientem that the comet article is more comprehensively sourced. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, uninteresting. Abductive (reasoning) 18:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, using the word "descend" rather than "crash". The event is global news and of high interest as it marks the end of a very major mission and because of the data that may have been collected during this event. ~Mable (chat) 20:52, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Descend" seems inaccurate. Friday's BBC story said: "Europe's Rosetta probe has ended its mission to Comet 67P by crash-landing on ... the icy object's surface. Mission control in Darmstadt, Germany, was able to confirm the impact had occurred when radio contact to the ageing spacecraft was lost abruptly. The assumption is that the probe would have been damaged beyond use." Sca (talk) 21:23, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support if the local Philly news radio sees fit to describe this as a crash landing, I think it is both newsworthy and accurate. Under the RD criteria this would be up already. μηδείς (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wasn't alive, so it can't be a "recent death". – Muboshgu (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Marking as Ready I believe there is a consensus in favor of posting this and there are no longer any objections based on article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. I went with the first blurb, as "crash" is used in all the sources I've seen. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting comment – What is a "controlled crash" – ?? Sca (talk) 01:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I've clarified slightly. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good summary. Thanks. Sca (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But should 'crash landing' be hyphenated? Sca (talk) 21:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the school of English I was taught? Espresso Addict (talk) 21:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well BBC (above) hyphenated it as a verb. But whatever.... Sca (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC) [reply]

[Closed] 2016 FIFA U-17 Women's World Cup

[Posted] RD: Shirley Jaffe

Nominator's comments: Article has been updated and referenced. MurielMary (talk) 09:39, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Good job on the referencing, but I think more detail is needed on her style, works and critical reception before this can be posted. A list of some of her notable works is lacking, as is any detail on her sculpture. Pre-expansion there was a quotation that has been removed, which was useful; I assume this couldn't be referenced? The lead also could do with being a little longer. There's a long obituary in French from Le Figaro but embarrassingly I can't read the technical French.[1] Espresso Addict (talk) 17:46, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestions - have expanded somewhat. Espresso Addict MurielMary (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm prepared to Support now. To the comment below about her death not being in the mainstream news, Le Figaro seems adequate. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support it seems okay but not really comprehensive. Having said that, it's not a stub, and it has decent references, and is written well. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks OK to me. Per preceding comments it could do with a little more meat on the bones but what we have passes muster. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. An unknown artist whose article gets about 5 readers a day will dilute and trivialize the main page RD section. --Light show (talk) 20:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Light show nominations for RD are assessed on the quality of the article, not the notability of the subject. MurielMary (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"In the news" means widespread/general coverage, not a mention in the subsection of a niche periodical. And, yes, the readership of the Saturday Arts & Design section of the NYT is a niche audience.

• Oppose no major works or awards. μηδείς (talk) 21:36, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notability no longer a criteria for opposing a nom. Quality of article only. MurielMary (talk) 22:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The revised RD guidelines presumes that anyone with an article is sufficiently notable to be listed on RD. The only valid grounds for opposition is article quality. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It damn well is a criteria; WP:Ignore all rules is a WP:Policy. How dare you two attempt to stifle debate with your bogus claim? Abductive (reasoning) 23:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. I agree that Jaffe is not the most important, notable, or widely reported of deaths, but the community endorsed a quite permissive approach to selecting postings at RD. Also, her inclusion is far from the least notable or least prominent to be posted since the RFC. Dragons flight (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] 2016 Hoboken train crash

[Closed] RD: Miriam Defensor Santiago

[Posted] RD: Agnes Nixon

Nominator's comments: Article had orange maintenance tags, which I have resolved and removed. However there is an IP user on the article busily reverting my edits. MurielMary (talk) 04:45, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditional Support While the article is not horrible, there are a few too many gaps in sourcing to post right now. These need to be filled in. Any claims of fact that are not obviously non-controversial need citations. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is much improved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose seriously under-referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:56, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

TRM, are you referring to the paragraphs of prose being under-referenced, or do you think the last two sections (lists of writing positions) need to be referenced?? Thanks. MurielMary (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not TRM, but there are several uncited paragraphs with content that could be challenged; I'll add citation tags. The lists of writing positions right at the bottom don't appear encyclopedic & probably need cutting out altogether. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• What would be really nice is a mention of in what field and why this person is notable. μηδείς (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-assessment requested as article has been overhauled. Reply to Medeis OK, but as RD noms are not assessed on notability I don't think this is necessary any longer. MurielMary (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose much better but those tenures don't appear to be referenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes true, have removed as they are probably unencyclopedic as well (overly detailed) MurielMary (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all good here, suggest that Ad Orientem and Espresso Addict have another look, seems good to go for me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Marking as ready. Nice work, thanks! Espresso Addict (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Dragons flight (talk) 20:43, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] WorldView-4

Closing per WP:SNOW. Modest Genius ^talk 13:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Articles: WorldView-4 (talk · history · tag) and Canyon Fire (2016) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The launch of the United Launch Alliance WorldView-4 satellite continues to be delayed due to numerous wildfires burning on Vandenberg Air Force Base. (Post)
News source(s): ^[4][5]
Credits:

• Nominated by Zackmann08 (talk · give credit)

 Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The delay of a launch due to external conditions (manmade or not) is not really ITN. If it does launch, or if the fires somehow damage/destroy the rocket, that would be different. --MASEM (t) 17:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Masem. Launch delays are far too run of the mill for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and suggest closure. Per AO, launch delays happen almost all the time. This is in no way more significant than any of the hundreds of others. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Per all above. Concur with The Rambling Man as needing closure.Rhodesisland (talk) 03:42, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] MH17

[Posted] RD: Max Walker

Nominator's comments: Played 34 cricket tests for Australia, plus was a very good Aussie Rules footballer. Article sourcing needs improvement, but there are plenty of obituaries this morning that can be used as sources, so I will start addressing that. I don't know who to list as the "updater" because many IPs have made small contributions. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 01:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Target article is almost completely unsourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sad death but the article needs more references to be suitable for ITN. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 03:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on lack of citations. Whole sections are unreferenced. MurielMary (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have fully-sourced the article and expanded the lead, but I do not wish to remove the tags myself. Inviting Ad Orientem, Yellow Dingo and MurielMary to take a second look. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 05:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the Ref Improve tag. Unfortunately there is another orange tag there that needs to be removed before this can be posted. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I have no reason to believe that image is usable under fair use. Just because the individual died in the last 24 hours, that doesn't mean efforts have been made to source a free image. Otherwise, the current orange tag is stupid, the lead is alright. The rest of the article is mediocre but fine. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support since all concerns above now seem to be taken care of. Connormah (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The article looks ready to me. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 02:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted with blurb] RD with blurb: Shimon Peres

Article: Shimon Peres (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Former Israeli President and Prime Minister, and Nobel Peace Prize winner Shimon Peres dies at the age of 93 (Post)
News source(s): NY Times, The Atlantic, The Guardian, CNN,
Credits:

• Nominated by EdChem (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Avaya1 (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Not sure who to credit as updaters - maybe me and others? EdChem (talk) 02:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Parts of the article still require more citations. On the question of whether there should be a blurb, I tend to think that Peres falls just short of the threshold. He was certainly a very important Israeli leader, but I would not say he stands out as obviously more significant than other recent Israeli leaders, such as Rabin, Sharon, Netanyahu and Olmert. At his age, there was also nothing unexpected about his death. Neljack (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Oh man. This really needs to be posted at least to RD and I think a credible argument can be made for a blurb. Unfortunately, once again, we are confounded by crappy referencing. Sigh... -Ad Orientem (talk)
• Oppose blurb even with sourcing. I don't think he rises to that level. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb with sourcing Peres was often known as a founding father of Israel, and had huge impact on the entire region. Definitely reaches Lee Kuan Yew level of notability. EternalNomad (talk) 03:20, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb sigh. I know he's not American, not from an English country, and he only won a Nobel Peace Prize rather than starred in Bicentennial Man. I just think it's sad In the News used to have genuine international stories, and now it's beneath the level of market tabloids. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ITN has its problems but I'm not sure that's a fair shot. The only reason this may not get posted is because of the lack luster quality of the article. ITN is not a news feed. It exists to highlight good quality articles whose subjects are topical by reason of current news coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose in current state due to lack of citations. MurielMary (talk) 03:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• A separate article about his death and state funeral could be plausibly be written, so this could get a blurb. (Though I don't really expect anyone to bother, given the woeful state his main article was in, though that's at least improving.) The way to do get it there is the same way to get it to RD: proper sourcing in the article, not frivolous complaints about other articles that were acceptably sourced. —Cryptic 04:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but I think it would be begging for an AfD nom as a content fork and per NOTNEWS. He died of natural causes at 93. And state funerals almost never get their own articles. -Ad Orientem (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is no requirement that for a blurb to be supported that a separate article on the death/funeral have to be made. --MASEM (t) 04:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to say that a separate article needs to be made, just that it be plausible that one could be. And while there's no requirement for even that, there's no requirement that I not oppose a nomination for failing it, either. —Cryptic 05:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on improvements, RD for sure, general support for blurb - Some weak sourcing but this can be fixed. A former elected leader of a major nation should be given a blurb, the nobel prize pushes it further, but I would like to see a better article for that blurb to be supported. --MASEM (t) 04:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense is Israel a major nation, Masem? It is a mid-size country, albeit one that receives a lot of attention due to its geopolitical situation and controversy. We must be wary of systemic bias. And even in the case of countries that clearly are major nations, I'm not convinced that every former elected leader would warrant a blurb - would you really say that every former Prime Minister of Italy or Japan (and there are lots of them, some of whom held office for quite short periods), and every former President of Mexico or the Philippines, warrant blurbs. That would seem a big change from our current practice. Neljack (talk) 06:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb - He was a tremendously important figure in 20th century history. The sourcing issues can be easily fixed. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Update: it looks like several editors have already resolved most of the unsourced statements. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - Major figure and internationally known. Article needs some touch up, but nothing major. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

by precedent we posted yitzak shamir (I did the update) and he was head of govt and sate. just reword blurb to remove nobel OR title as its too wordy. (btw- nobel deaths are also precedent here).Lihaas (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb. Article seems to be in better shape, includes important historical details, and uses nearly 70 citations.--Light show (talk) 04:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I have been adding sourcing as have some others. Happy to try to find a suitable source for anything still felt to need it. I would ask earlier commenters on sourcing to please re-evaluate and identify / tag anything still needing work. As for the blurb issue, I'm obviously in favour as a Nobel Laureate who helped to found Israel, was a leader for 50+ years, negotiated their nuclear program, was an instigator of the Suez war, etc. Have a look at his description in the New York Times. EdChem (talk) 04:53, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Would someone experienced with ITN please see who deserves credit as updaters? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 05:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be Avaya1 who has made by far the most substantial updates. It's easy: I added him to the ITN template above, and then just hit "Give credit". Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I asked specifically because I was unsure whether the 'updater' credit(s) belong to those who post the information updated in the blurb or all updates to the article to make it ITN-ready. Avaya1 did a lot of work after the blurb was posted. I did quite a bit of referencing, as well as adding material and references on the death, after posting the ITN request in response to well-justified criticisms of inadequate referencing. Others had already added some material on the death. Hence my request. By the way, with "giving credit", does that involve something on user talk pages, as I have had no notification. Just asking. Thanks. EdChem (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb once referencing issues have been addressed. Significant Middle-East politician. Mjroots (talk) 05:35, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. Very long political career (66 years!); probably the last major figure of the Israeli founding generation; Nobel Prize shows international significance. Article needs some work, but nothing precluding posting. Neutrality^talk 07:12, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted with blurb. Dragons flight (talk) 07:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support of blurb. High international significance, given his impact. 331dot (talk) 08:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• PP support I don't often lump on, but in this case, a good call. Only issue I have with the article on a quick glance is the massively excessive use of External links. But meh. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I've been working on this article (mainly the section on the Suez crisis) for a couple of years. But as you can see, the referencing and historical sections (aside from the coverage of Suez) are really not great, including some parts I've added today (without access to the relevant books). The only part of the article which goes into real historical detail is the Suez crisis. Today I've re-ordered the lede and added some quotes from Peres (since he is famous for making memorable quotes or bon-mots). However, the article certainly needs a lot of expansion to cover the other parts of his career (the 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, etc). Also, not everything in the article is well-cited currently. In terms of the subject's notability though - he is clearly one of the most significant figures in recent history, as evidenced by the fact his funeral will be attended by leaders from the around the world. He was one of the father's of Israel nuclear program, Rafael, the Oslo process, etc. Avaya1 (talk) 20:01, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Interplanetary Transport System

[Closed] Three-parent baby

[Closed] Loma Fire

[Posted] Ongoing: Aleppo offensive

• Aleppo offensive (September 2016) has seen some of the fiercest fighting recently and there are all kinds of diplomatic tensions. I believe ongoing is in place at the moment, since I can't think of a good blurb. There are day-to-day updates. --Tone 13:12, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support The article is not very long but it is also fairly new. It's also decently sourced and is, at least for now, getting regular updates. And of course this is major news. So yeah, let's give it a shot and see if it works out. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support per Ad Orientem. Aleppo has been a significant part of the Syrian Civil War. Somebody inform Gary Johnson. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad he's not going to be our President!--WaltCip (talk) 18:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support infinitely more historically significant than the current ITN items "Rugby Championship" and "chess olympiad". 20:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thue (talk • contribs)
• Support little point in comparing chalk with cheese, this stands out as something which is receiving regular news coverage and has an article up-to-date too, so a few days at Ongoing won't do any harm. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Bill Mollison

Nominator's comments: I am re-opening my nomination here because the first news report that reliably verified the death of Bill Mollison was on September 25, 2016, which was the day after his death on September 24. Mollison was the co-founder of the Permaculture "movement", which has impacted, directly or indirectly, hundreds-of-thousands of lives. It was verified by Mollison's wife that he died just before 11pm ADT, late in the evening of September 24. In other words, too late to report his death until September 25. Since mainstream news sources in Australia didn't report his death until September 26th, it is not unreasonable to list Mollison's nomination under September 25. Please note that this nomination already received two "support" votes before it was closed yesterday. For more clarification on how I thought through this nomination process, please link to my Proposal to amend the RD nomination criteria for more information. Christian Roess (talk) 23:33, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I don't see any issues with the article. Seems sourcing is acceptable and the article feels complete enough for RD inslusion. Any other eyes looked at it? Rhodesisland (talk) 03:36, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks solid and decently sourced. -Ad Orientem (talk) 03:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked as Ready Normally I'd like more than two reviews before posting an item but it's a weekend and this is near the bottom of the page. I think it's good enough to post. Let's do this before it becomes stale. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. I've left 5 items at RD for now, as it did not overflow the first line. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD:Jean Shepard

Nominator's comments: article seems comprehensive and well sourced; is rated "C-class" MurielMary (talk) 06:37, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Support Overall not in bad shape. But there are a few too many unsourced claims to post right now. I've added a few CN tags. Fix those and we should be good to go. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• CN tags resolved. MurielMary (talk) 05:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article in good nick, good to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] FAST telescope

Nominator's comments: In light of the fact we have a dearth of new blurbs (and only four remaining) as of time of writing. Banedon (talk) 01:47, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tentative support. The article says "It is currently undergoing testing and commissioning.". It should be a bit more precise. --Tone 07:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but please add a link to first light (astronomy) in the blurb. This is a significant milestone in the world's largest single-dish radio telescope, and the best opportunity to feature it on ITN. Telescope commissioning is always a gradual process, taking years to ramp up to full efficiency and operations. First light is the milestone, and that's what FAST has done. Modest Genius ^talk 11:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support wooo, USA, USA! Nergaal (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support And this is a blurb that include one of the images of the telescope. --MASEM (t) 14:15, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Do we have an image of the completed telescope? All the ones in the article are of various stages of construction, which are rather uninformative views of steel girders. Modest Genius ^talk 17:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  At least to me, even the current one at the top of the FAST article gives an idea of the scale of this thing, even if the dish isn't in place. (obviously a completed picture would be better). --MASEM (t) 20:01, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. Though I wonder why they don't call it the 500AST or the FHMAST.--WaltCip (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. I've modified the blurb to link first light per Modest Genius. Espresso Addict (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] RD: Arnold Palmer

Nominator's comments: Professional golfer who won seven majors. News is just breaking now. Calidum ¤ 00:36, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. Well this is just a crappy day in the sports world. This should be a no brainer for RD but sadly the article quality is well below community standards for linking on the main page. Referencing in particular is very poor. The article needs a serious tune up before we can post this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending article quality update - Definitely worth including in RD but I think a blurb may be necessary here. He was a very important figure to the game of Golf and turned it from an elite sport to one the common man could play and enjoy. Andise1 (talk) 01:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support pending significant improvements Far too much unsourced prose for a recognizable figure. I would throw out the potential of a blurb given how much of a role Palmer made on the sport, but the article's going to take a lot of work to just get to RD, much less a blurb-quality article. --MASEM (t) 01:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD subject to article quality conditions being met. Mjroots (talk) 06:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose probably doesn't need reiterating, but a woefully referenced article for such a golfing icon. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  For those users "confused" by my opposition, it is based on the quality of the article. We no longer debate the notability of the individual (nor have we done for a couple of months now). I understand that many individuals are happy to post sub-standard articles to the main page, but our current ITN guidelines advise against it, hence my decision. For it to be taken out of context and used against me is really, really low. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:01, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now I'll reiterate it anyway, TRM. It's surprising that the bio of such an important figure is in such poor shape, even the day after his death. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems the extent of referencing is usually judged only during RD nominations. Just like Curtis Hanson, for example, Palmer hasn't been orange-tagged before RD nomination. Brandmeister^talk 18:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As the editor who attached the orange tag, I will note in my defense that I never had reason to visit this article until now. And the general condition of articles, including referencing, is certainly a relevant subject when discussing whether or not to link them on the main page. I don't see GA or FA as reasonable criteria, but an article should certainly be decently sourced with no glaring gaps if we are going to promote it to our readers. That is clearly not the case here. And I have a long track record (annoying to some editors) of beating the drum about crappy sourcing on articles. Not too long ago I proposed at the Village Pump that all new articles should be required to cite at least one RS source in support of at least one claim of fact in the article. It was shot down in flames but my point is that concern about poor sourcing is not a new or selective hobby for me. This project claims to be an encyclopedia. But whenever we tolerate articles that are poorly referenced, or all too often articles with none at all, we damage the credibility of that claim. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with that. My point was really that golf fans who edit Wikipedia should've done a better job on the article of one of the most important golfers, whose article I have no reason to visit. On the other hand, I'm a big fan of baseball and I've had a major part in José Fernández (pitcher), which was in good enough shape to post before I even woke up to hear the news of his death. It's sad to see such an important article (tagged as vital) in such a shape. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The article seems to have two main areas: one dealing with his early and personal life, popular culture stuff, and the body text which is mostly minutia about his various tournaments. The other, and probably most important sections, include massive and well-made charts of all his tournaments. I think that the charts alone make the article valuable. I scanned the body text and it's mostly trivia about some of those tournaments, so even without cites, the details are not that important. --Light show (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are around 10 CNs sitting on the page. It's nowhere close to ready. The prose is there but it is not sourced, and that simply does not work for front page posting, even if it just an RD. If it is trivia, then it should be removed (but my read, it is far from trivia but emphasizing key victories he took that led to his success). --MASEM (t) 02:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The solution, IMO, is pretty simple. Note Jack Nicklaus's article, which is twice as large, has I'd estimate about 20-times as much unsourced trivia, since the body text is so massive, yet has no CN's. I'd therefore just remove Palmer's CNs for everything equally trivial. After review Nichlaus, I could go through and easily add 75 CNs for uncited facts. Just look at the ends of paragraphs, most without sources. 10 trivia CNs should just be removed. --Light show (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have to respectfully disagree with your analysis. What you refer to as minutia are claims of fact that are not backed by citations to RS sources. Some of the tables you refer to are not clearly sourced. There is an orange tag and a plethora of CN tags all over the article. That alone is usually a showstopper here. There is a longstanding consensus that we do not promote articles on the main page that are not in reasonably good shape. And while it pains me to say it, for an article about such an iconic figure, the referencing is shockingly poor. This article cannot be linked on the main page in its present condition. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:36, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Let me re-iterate: the CN tags were added after this RD nomination (likely to push editors to fill in the information). If Nicklaus died today, we would have the same problem with lack of sources. (There's no sign of Nicklaus' article being an GA or FA). Further, we should not be sweeping out that much track of information just because no one interested can be bothered to find the references needed; the information while unsourced does appear factually true and significant towards Palmer's notability, so removal just for posting to RD is a terrible option. --MASEM (t) 02:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we would have the same problem. Because we do not post articles with crappy sourcing on the main page. I added at least some of those CN tags when I was reviewing the article as part of the RD nominating process. And I will object strenuously to any attempt to remove them or the ref improve tag until those issues are resolved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly agree. But an example of kind of trivia that's tagged is the first one: "His win in the 1954 U.S. Amateur made him decide to try the pro tour for a while, and he and new bride Winifred Walzer (whom he had met at a Pennsylvania tournament) traveled the circuit for 1955.[citation needed]" I mean, that kind of trivia didn't need a tag IMO. In fact the sentence could be removed without harming the article, which I noted, is half the size of Nicklaus's. Another option is for each of us to just pick a CN and fix it. Heck, I can go in there and fix the article but I'd need to get paid double for overtime. What's 2 X $0? --Light show (talk) 02:49, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to removing unsourced material from the article. I have done it myself a few times in order to get an article up to scratch for ITN. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:59, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I took care of the CNs, although anyone can review for any errors. I also think a golfing image like this one would look good for the lead. It seems to meet all PD requirements with dates on the reverse. If anyone wants to review it and give the OK, I can upload it to commons. --Light show (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mel Charles, who died the same day, and whose RD is posted, received less than 5,000 page views on the day he died, vs. 700,000 for Palmer.--Light show (talk) 21:52, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Mel Charles' article was up to scratch when posted. Palmer's article is still crap. I'm not sure what you're trying to say other than we should ignore all the guidelines around the ITN process of posting RDs? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The few early opposers noted the CNs and lack of references. A lot of that has been fixed so the article is worth a quick recheck and some updated ideas about how to get it ready. --Light show (talk) 22:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just visited the article and added some CN tags. And deleted a piece of unsourced fancruft. The article is in better shape now than it was previously, I grant you. It's not that far from posting, IMO. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Refs to those CNs fixed. --Light show (talk) 22:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I have no further objections. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Arnold Palmer was a major sports figure and cultural icon of the mid-20th Century, not just in golf. I find the linkage between that historical life and the quality of his biographical article here at Wikipedia to be absurd. This lack of common sense and proportion is just another case of Wikipedia's inability to not distinguish the forest for its own ill-planted trees.Marcd30319 (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb. The article isn't brilliant but it meets our minimum standards; we've certainly posted worse RDs. Nowhere near the wide impact required for a blurb though. Modest Genius ^talk 11:18, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• There are six paragraphs that lack a single reference, and others that have but a single reference somewhere in the text. Stephen 12:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support RD He is by far heavily influential in the golf world not only in America but throughout the world and his death is being reported globally. Strong support. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. References have been cleaned up and there's no longer an orange tag on the article. While not FA quality, this is good enough to post. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quality is improved. This is postable. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Dragons flight (talk) 05:16, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Mel Charles

 EchetusXe 17:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article looks solid and reasonably well sourced. The Honours section near the bottom needs a cite and one of the tables is not clear on its source. But overall I think it's good enough to link. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support sources looks ok. good for RD.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support there was one thing I tagged as it was mildly contentious, but other than that, this is exactly what the new RD criteria are all about. Decent article, recent death, no bitching over his notability, just some minor quibbles over some tweaks required. Excellent. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. So, is it good to go then? Rhodesisland (talk) 01:45, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked as Ready to Post. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:54, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --Jayron32 02:06, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] [Posted to RD] José Fernández

Posted to RD, it does not seem we will get a consensus for a blurb. The discussion about baseball details can be carried out elsewhere, closing this one. --Tone 09:30, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Article: José Fernández (pitcher) (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ All Star Major League Baseball pitcher Jose Fernandez dies in a boating accident. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Miami Marlins pitcher Jose Fernandez dies in a boating accident, at the age of 24.
News source(s): ESPN LATimes
Credits:

• Nominated by Calidum (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: All Star MLB pitcher killed at the age of 24 in a boating accident. Calidum ¤ 13:55, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb This is one of the best players in all of baseball. Truly shocking news that is blurb-worthy. --Tocino 14:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Support RD Blurb Very sad news. The article is solid and well sourced. Given his age, fame and circumstances of death this might be a candidate for a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a blurb to the nomination, which I support per my above comment. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support for blurb. Internationally notable news. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 14:12, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt blurb as my preferred wording. — Crumpled Fire • contribs • 14:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD but oppose blurb I don't think its readily possible to assert a player that's only had 3 seasons as significant to the sport as some about have indicated. The article is not at the level of an FA where I would reasonably consider a blurb. I do recognize the death is surprising so I do see the value of the blurb on that but I don't see enough to consider this a shocking-enough death that will affect the baseball industry (or beyond it) for a blurb. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the sources I am reading are referring to him as one of the top pitchers in the game. He was Miami's ace. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for at least RD He was one of the top young pitchers in baseball. While his death was tragic and unexpected, I'm on the fence about a blurb.Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 15:05, September 25, 2016 (UTC)
• Support for RD obviously. As for a blurb, I would personally support a blurb due to the unexpected nature of the death, but I do understand this MLB pitcher doesn't quite reach the Mandela-Thatcher status that ITN's regulars seem so infatuated with.--WaltCip (talk) 15:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That "standard" is really intended for people whose deaths are not entirely unexpected and/or the result of natural causes. While we only rarely give a blurb to notable figures who have died one of the generally recognized exceptions is when the subject is extremely well known, often in the top tier of their field, and their death is highly unexpected or even shocking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:22, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted as RD, for which there are no issues. --Tone 15:43, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support RD, weak oppose blurb The article is in decent condition, so RD is no question. A blurb would be a case of systematic bias IMO, since other athletes of similar or greater notability who died in similar conditions (such as Estelle Balet, who was world champion the two years before her death) usually don't get blurbs. EternalNomad (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Arguably baseball's most shocking death since Thurman Munson. He was at the time one of the top 10 players in the sport. Major ripples in the sports world, top story in almost every American news website. Prevan (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. Massive news story, article looks good. Nohomersryan (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb – Unexpected death of a star player in a top-level sport. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 17:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. As EternalNomad suggests, there is a systemic bias issue here in that we likely wouldn't do this with other similar athletes in other sports. I suspect few outside of baseball would be familiar with this athlete and his career was not long; despite the unexpected nature of the death, I think RD is sufficient here. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question I am curious how you reconcile your above comment with your support for a blurb in the case of Jules Bianchi, whose claim to notability was nowhere near as strong as José Fernández? Not trying to be snarky, just wondering. The two positions don't seem to be compatible. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No 'snarkiness' taken. Primarily the difference between this and your example is that injury that caused Bianchi's death was during a competition, while in this case it was a boating accident. If this baseball player had gotten struck by a batted ball and died, that is a rare event that would merit posting(extremely rare from what I am aware of). 331dot (talk) 21:19, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb As unfortunate as this is, it isn't unprecedented. You don't even have to look back to Thurman Munson or Roberto Clemente; Nick Adenhart and Oscar Taveras died in similar circumstances in recent years. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't compare Fernandez's death with Tavaras or Adenhardt. Both of those players were promising prospects killed so soon, but haven't done much in their mlb careers before dying. Fernandez was one of the best players in baseball when he was killed. Here is a case of a top player dying so shocking and suddenly that an entire sport is in mourning. I can add many links attesting to this fact but I am on my phone so I can't until tomorrow. From what itnc criteria says, if its an unexpected death from a top figure, then it should be posted if the quality is right. This easily qualifies. Prevan (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb fails the "Death of ...." test in so far as in a fortnight, no-one will be talking about this, nor in year, or decade or a century. Not a Bowie, Mandela, not even a Paul Walker even though that was one hideous mistake we should never repeat. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:32, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb, the readers who care will just be looking for a place to click. To many people, Wikipedia is the place to do a quick lookup of a fact. For example, someone might dimly remember that he played on the same youth team as some other Cuban defector, and just want to get to that article. Abductive (reasoning) 00:23, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Death of José Fernández is a redlink, would be immediately taken to afd if created, and would be deleted there. This isn't close to blurb material. —Cryptic 01:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb per above. Wizardman 02:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Quoting Ad Orientem above, "Almost all of the sources I am reading are referring to him as one of the top pitchers in the game. He was Miami's ace." "one of the top pitchers" implies there are other top pitchers, which makes it less appropriate to post this. Can't support a blurb under these circumstances I'm afraid. Banedon (talk) 08:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  If you are going to express an opinion about his significance to baseball, you might want to know at least a little something about baseball. Considered the top league in the world, MLB has only 30 teams hosted in 17 US states, 1 Canadian province, and the District of Columbia. A clue might have been that "Miami" is not a state. The state of Florida, in fact, has two teams. So, no, there is not a comparable player in every state or every country. At the time of his death he was considered the third best starting pitcher in the MLB [5] (based on 2016 performance) out of ~150 MLB starting pitchers (and not counting the lower tier of ~200 MLB relief pitchers). Dragons flight (talk) 08:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point. Amending the oppose rationale. What you wrote does not change my opinion though, only the specifics. Instead of 50 states there are now 30 teams, which is still a large number; further you write that he is the "third best starting pitcher" which means there are two pitchers better than him, which also does not help the case for a blurb. Banedon (talk) 08:59, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[Closed] Volkswagen wins the Ig Nobel Chemistry prize

[Posted] Yahoo! data breach

 Fixuture (talk) 21:46, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am not going to vote since I created the article but I will make a few observations. I believe the article is reasonably well written and solidly sourced. The topic is clearly in the news. However while I have hopes of expansion, right now it's still a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:03, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• While still a bit brief, the article has been expanded to the point where I believe it is no longer a stub. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is important news of direct relevance to a large fraction of the people who will read this as they may have a Yahoo account. Count Iblis (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on improvements Something potentially affecting between 5-8% of the world population is significant. Right now I am concerned with the amount of hyerpbole/"scare" writing in the article but that's just a matter of re-toning what's there. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - it's not the "post me!" kind of news, but it is something, it affects lots of people, and it's also been quite a while since we had a new blurb. Banedon (talk) 01:19, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original blurb and particularly alt II. Article is slight but contains the basics. The blurb should definitely mention 2014, but I'd hold off on "state-sponsored" till more information is released. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:46, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

oppose as its ages ago and "potentially affecting" has no ramifications. (yet)Lihaas (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we consider where an average story of this type gets coverage (as we have to do with announced business deals being at the point they are announced rather than the point they are completed), the point where a massive data breech like this is at the point of public revealing, not at the point where it happened or the point where damage is done (the latter which would be an extremely slow tail if there is that much compromised). --MASEM (t) 18:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Major news covered on most mainstream news outlets. Likely of interest to readers. Original blurb seems good. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:24, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - possibly the largest data breach in history. Neutrality^talk 18:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Q Is there sufficient consensus to post this? -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting mild support but only because it's a well-written article, unlike much of the dreck that makes its way to the main page. Unconvinced that's in a major story though. Black Kite (talk) 23:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm a rather uninvolved and lazy observer of this page, but my observation is that the emphasis, here, is shifting toward featuring quality instead of mere buzzworthiness (though the story should be "in the news", but then a lot of them are). If my impression is right, then I think you should make your opposition against posting dreck be heard, as it is likely to resound among the regular voices heard here. (If, however, you are referring to other things, outside ITN, that make their way to the main page, then ignore this post). ---Sluzzelin talk 00:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Nazi symbology on Blenheim Palace

[Closed] Shooting of Keith Lamont Scott

RD: Curtis Hanson

Nominator's comments: Oscar-winning director/writer. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, RD classics, article is in generally good condition. Brandmeister^talk 08:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. Some of the statements in the prose section need citations and the filmography is entirely unreferenced. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks solid and reasonably well sourced. No sources cited for the filmography but all of the listed films have their own article. That works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose mostly unsourced and not particularly comprehensive; essentially just a list of films that he wrote and directed. Tagged his film career. Body doesn't mention all his awards (see cats/navboxes) and the Oscar isn't even sourced. Fuebaey (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Ad Orientem. Jusdafax 02:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in current state - many uncited statements. MurielMary (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Peter Leo Gerety

Nominator's comments: He was the oldest living Catholic bishop. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose some inline external links and some self-published sources, otherwise ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks adequate without any major errors. --Jayron32 14:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral lean opposed. The article doesn't appear to be in bad shape (i.e. reasonably well written and sourced) but it also doesn't appear to have been updated with anything from obituaries on his death. One reason may be that his death seems to have garnered (at least so far) almost no coverage in the mainstream press. A Google News search yielded exactly one post mortem mention, which I can't link as it has been blacklisted by Wikipedia. I am not sure this is what we could reasonably call "In the News." -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Basic criteria for ITN and BLP. Please provide a source for his death, on this nomination and preferably in the article. Fuebaey (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Added a source here. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 15:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is the one source I referred to in my cmt. I got a message that it was blackisted on here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. I have added it here and to the article without difficulty. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 16:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question – Is "Peter Leo Gerety" the subject's common name? As I attempted to point out in this RM, these articles on Catholic bishops appear to have been named without regard for WP:COMMONNAME. I found nothing in WP:NCP which provides exceptions for subsets of articles to be named according to the conventions of some other website rather than our own policies/guidelines. There are other subsets of articles for which this same situation applies, such as United States federal judges. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Newark isn't my diocese and he retired before I was born. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remember him. I was Catholic back then and he was a very prominent, and controversial, figure in the Church. He was just known as Bishop Gerety. Some of the more conservative Catholics had other names for him, but we won't go there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have filed for divorce

Aid suspended in Syria

 Smurrayinchester 11:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose both proposed target articles. The Syria Ceasefire article is about a different event than the one described in the blurb, it's also titled incorrectly (should be 2016 Syrian Civil War ceasefire, note bad capitalization and vague title in the actual title) Also, if there are two different events, they should probably be 2 different articles. The Humanitarian aid article also needs work; it is very incomplete, insofar as the blurb is about a UN-Red Cresent joint humanitarian aid mission that was attacked; the body of the article does NOT cover either organization's humanitarian aid in general, and the body ALSO does not cover the attack (per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize text in the main body of an article, and should not introduce new information). The event itself is being reported in the news, which is fine, but we have no quality article to direct readers to if they wish to learn more. ITN's primary mission is to direct readers to articles. We don't have anything worthwhile yet. --Jayron32 11:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Of the two articles given here I would favour linking the Syrian Ceasefire article, but it's only tangentially related, since the article includes two ceasefires and only the second one is being terminated (it's also orange tagged, too). The September 2016 Deir ez-Zor air raid article would have been article to link, but it's six days since the event and likely stale. Banedon (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing: Syrian civil war

Hi, I think it's unnecessary to include a nomination header for this, but it should definitely go back to "Ongoing": the Syrian civil war. Perhaps more specifically link to the most current section. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a blurb is more appropriate. I am currently working on bringing articles up to standard for two blurbs - ceasefire collapses, and UN suspends aid following an attack on its convoy. Smurrayinchester 10:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose last substantive update to that article was a single sentence about the September 12th cease fire. If we aren't updating an article more than once every 8 days, it isn't suitable for ongoing. Also, I would oppose on quality issues. The article is poorly written, and needs someone to copyedit the article for tone and style, particularly fixing the WP:PROSELINE issues with the writing. But regardless of that, an article which has no information newer than 8 days ago isn't eligible for ongoing. If the article was receiving multiple, rapid updates on information that itself was appearing in the news daily, it would be eligible. --Jayron32 11:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's change something about?! :) -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose a Ongoing template. But support a blurb with an appropriate update of the situation.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Both blurb and ongoing per Jayron32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Curtis Hanson

Nominator's comments: Oscar-winning director/writer. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, RD classics, article is in generally good condition. Brandmeister^talk 08:58, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. Some of the statements in the prose section need citations and the filmography is entirely unreferenced. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:44, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks solid and reasonably well sourced. No sources cited for the filmography but all of the listed films have their own article. That works for me. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose mostly unsourced and not particularly comprehensive; essentially just a list of films that he wrote and directed. Tagged his film career. Body doesn't mention all his awards (see cats/navboxes) and the Oscar isn't even sourced. Fuebaey (talk) 16:31, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Ad Orientem. Jusdafax 02:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose in current state - many uncited statements. MurielMary (talk) 08:21, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Peter Leo Gerety

Nominator's comments: He was the oldest living Catholic bishop. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose some inline external links and some self-published sources, otherwise ok. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks adequate without any major errors. --Jayron32 14:14, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral lean opposed. The article doesn't appear to be in bad shape (i.e. reasonably well written and sourced) but it also doesn't appear to have been updated with anything from obituaries on his death. One reason may be that his death seems to have garnered (at least so far) almost no coverage in the mainstream press. A Google News search yielded exactly one post mortem mention, which I can't link as it has been blacklisted by Wikipedia. I am not sure this is what we could reasonably call "In the News." -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:50, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Basic criteria for ITN and BLP. Please provide a source for his death, on this nomination and preferably in the article. Fuebaey (talk) 15:48, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Added a source here. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 15:54, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is the one source I referred to in my cmt. I got a message that it was blackisted on here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:59, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. I have added it here and to the article without difficulty. Bencherlite^Talk (using his alt account Bencherheavy) 16:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Question – Is "Peter Leo Gerety" the subject's common name? As I attempted to point out in this RM, these articles on Catholic bishops appear to have been named without regard for WP:COMMONNAME. I found nothing in WP:NCP which provides exceptions for subsets of articles to be named according to the conventions of some other website rather than our own policies/guidelines. There are other subsets of articles for which this same situation applies, such as United States federal judges. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 00:19, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Newark isn't my diocese and he retired before I was born. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I remember him. I was Catholic back then and he was a very prominent, and controversial, figure in the Church. He was just known as Bishop Gerety. Some of the more conservative Catholics had other names for him, but we won't go there. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt have filed for divorce

Aid suspended in Syria

 Smurrayinchester 11:11, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose both proposed target articles. The Syria Ceasefire article is about a different event than the one described in the blurb, it's also titled incorrectly (should be 2016 Syrian Civil War ceasefire, note bad capitalization and vague title in the actual title) Also, if there are two different events, they should probably be 2 different articles. The Humanitarian aid article also needs work; it is very incomplete, insofar as the blurb is about a UN-Red Cresent joint humanitarian aid mission that was attacked; the body of the article does NOT cover either organization's humanitarian aid in general, and the body ALSO does not cover the attack (per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize text in the main body of an article, and should not introduce new information). The event itself is being reported in the news, which is fine, but we have no quality article to direct readers to if they wish to learn more. ITN's primary mission is to direct readers to articles. We don't have anything worthwhile yet. --Jayron32 11:43, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose - Of the two articles given here I would favour linking the Syrian Ceasefire article, but it's only tangentially related, since the article includes two ceasefires and only the second one is being terminated (it's also orange tagged, too). The September 2016 Deir ez-Zor air raid article would have been article to link, but it's six days since the event and likely stale. Banedon (talk) 01:25, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing: Syrian civil war

Hi, I think it's unnecessary to include a nomination header for this, but it should definitely go back to "Ongoing": the Syrian civil war. Perhaps more specifically link to the most current section. Greets, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a blurb is more appropriate. I am currently working on bringing articles up to standard for two blurbs - ceasefire collapses, and UN suspends aid following an attack on its convoy. Smurrayinchester 10:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose last substantive update to that article was a single sentence about the September 12th cease fire. If we aren't updating an article more than once every 8 days, it isn't suitable for ongoing. Also, I would oppose on quality issues. The article is poorly written, and needs someone to copyedit the article for tone and style, particularly fixing the WP:PROSELINE issues with the writing. But regardless of that, an article which has no information newer than 8 days ago isn't eligible for ongoing. If the article was receiving multiple, rapid updates on information that itself was appearing in the news daily, it would be eligible. --Jayron32 11:37, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, let's change something about?! :) -- Horst-schlaemma (talk) 12:56, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I oppose a Ongoing template. But support a blurb with an appropriate update of the situation.--BabbaQ (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Both blurb and ongoing per Jayron32. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Philippine Drug War

Nominator's comments: This was news last week but only blew up this week. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Like you say, it's stale. On significance, this particular story doesn't seem to have that much of an impact, but the entire subject might be worth trying for ongoing again. Fuebaey (talk) 12:59, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Article seems to be being updated more frequently than the last time this was nominated. However, I still have major concerns over the quality of the article, specifically the quality of the writing lacks a narrative flow, see WP:PROSELINE for a description of the problem. --Jayron32 13:05, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That article is particularly difficult to edit. There are plenty of Duterte supporters hiding around. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, then, how can we cite it as one of Wikipedia's best articles, and put it on the main page to recommend that readers look at it? --Jayron32 15:24, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• The suggested blurb is not something we'd post on ITN. If individual people are notable, separate blurb or RD. Otherwise, the only was I see this story to be posted is in Ongoing, unless there is a major development that merits individual blurb. --Tone 14:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support on-going, as it's been in the news for months now, and no sign of slowing down. Article needs work however, and please @Shhhhwwww!!: this is not the first time you nominate an inappropriate or badly researched blurb post. Go through some of the archives and read the main policy page to find out what would be an appropriate blurb or RD topic. Prevan (talk) 15:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • A sidenote: The nominator has been flooding WP:ITN/C and Portal:Current events with items of questionable merit for some time now (primarily, though not limited to, Philippines-related content), the majority of which had been rapidly removed or rejected as they failed notability on sight ("a bird-shaped airport opens", to give just one example, which was fortunately not brought here). Said editor seems uninterested in either mending their ways or discussing in case they object to the removal. I remain cautiously optimistic that a learning moment shall come soon. Morningstar (talk) 16:46, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Tone. The proposed blurb is tabloid fodder. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the blurb but support adding to Ongoing. I agree that the proposed blurb sound like a tabloid spam and not notable enough. HaEr48 (talk) 17:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sorry, I am new to this project (ITN) and I only started nominating around a month and a half ago. I haven't been too familiar with how to write the blurb. Yeah. I am going to be more cautious. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 18:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Shhhhwwww!! thank you and we appreciate your obvious desire to help improve the project. May I suggest you spend a little time here at ITNC and help review some of the current and newly added nominations? This will allow you to see what other more experienced editors are saying about them and will give you an idea about what we are looking for. But in short, we really are only looking for high quality (up-to-date, well sourced and written) articles about current events that are likely to be of interest to at least some of our readers. We try to avoid subjects that are purely sensational or likely only of a local nature, as well articles that have any significant deficiencies. Orange tags or any serious controversy like ongoing content disputes are usually a showstopper. Thanks again for your contributions and I hope you will stick around to help here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:55, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ongoing - but not the blurb. Ongoing would be appropriate though.BabbaQ (talk) 19:54, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose eight sentences or so added in the past two or three weeks? Not worth a slot. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:45, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not exactly sure what blurb we are analyzing, but there's only about a sentence or so for every "major event" from what I see in the article. Article isn't in-depth enough for ITN standards. —SomeoneNamedDerek (talk) 00:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ongoing - I nominated this for ongoing last time, and I still feel it's postable. This just keeps generating news. Banedon (talk) 01:08, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  News which, apparently, isn't significant enough for realistic updates in the target article, therefore invalidating it for inclusion at Ongoing. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]