RD: Andrejs Plakans

Latvian American historian. Thriley ( talk) 14:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Career section is mostly a list of positions, but does not have much detail about the subject's research career. Spencer ^{T• C} 02:14, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

(Posted) RD: Marina Kondratyeva

Russian ballerina. Thriley ( talk) 18:36, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Leading ballerina of the Bolshoi Ballet, famous as the "airy" Giselle, who received gala events from the company on her birthdays. I'll give her more refs but not right now, also asked a speaker of Russian for help. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 18:41, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment: 1 sentence that needs a ref but otherwise appropriate depth, essentially ready. Spencer ^{T• C} 21:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• With 500+ words of prose, this wikibio is more than long enough to qualify. Footnotes can be found at expected spots (except one spot about her 2013 appointment to the artistic council of the Bolshoi Ballet troupe). Formatting looks fine. Earwig has no complaints. This wikibio looks READY FOR RD (once the lone {cn} tag is addressed). -- PFHLai ( talk) 21:32, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment. It looks good to me. I suggest that if a citation cannot be found quickly for "In 2013, Kondratyeva was appointed a member of the artistic council of the Bolshoi Ballet troupe" - that the sentence be removed to the article's talk page until a citation can be found. I do not recommend deletion (temporary or otherwise) because it may then be forgotten, even though it is still there in the history. This is an attractive article for a link on the main page. Storye book ( talk) 07:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I followed your advice, moving to the talk page. I believe that he post was more or less honorary anyway, and doesn't change her biography much. On my search to find a reference I found two others for other facts that I added. I see that it would need someone knowing Russian to find a ref for the fact in question because English sources seem not to mention it, nor translations of the Russian sources we already have. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Posted. -- PFHLai ( talk) 11:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Women's high-jump WR

One of the longest-standing records in athletics, from 1987. Women's high jump world record progression 81.196.30.56 ( talk) 01:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose provincial sports trivia This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang ( talk) 02:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You don't seem to understand what "world" means. HiLo48 ( talk) 02:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• A world record is the exact opposite of a provincial story. Step hen 02:40, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support This is a notable world record which has been unbroken for 37 years. I've added an altblurb to reduce ambiguity. -- MtPenguinMonster ( talk) 04:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Support altblurb1 article is in good condition, and it's notable because of how long the record stood; the altblurb reduces ambiguity, so that's why I prefer it over the original blurb. Unknown-Tree🌲? ( talk) 05:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Support Altblurb article is in a good shape and breaking decades old record is blurbworthy. PrinceofPunjab ^TALK 06:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support in principle. Article is also in good shape.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 06:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Issues There are several issues with this:

1. The target article doesn't have much of an update and has lots of uncited facts.
2. Another athletics world record was broken at the same event – see Guardian
3. This was a warm-up for the Olympics which we're about to run. I suppose more world records will be broken at that.
4. The record has not been ratified and there can be technical objections.
5. There are so many sports with so many stats that records are broken all the time. For example, Lewis Hamilton won the British Grand Prix on Sunday which extended his record of wins and was the first time a driver had won a race for the ninth time. At Wimbledon, there's an new amazing record. There was a recent record at the Tour de France which we didn't run. And so on...

Andrew🐉( talk) 07:30, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

From above "This is a notable world record which has been unbroken for 37 years." HiLo48 ( talk) 07:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Jumping as high as possible is probably a much more mainstream world record than having the most victories in which the winning tennis player came back from two sets to zero. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 08:03, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The cycling record had lasted for 55 years but we still didn't post it. These numbers seem fairly arbitrary and there will tend to be a natural plateau as sports are established and become mature. Andrew🐉( talk) 08:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC) ( edit conflict) reply

If more people here understood Le Tour, we would have posted that cycling record, but comments made it obvious too many didn't and weren't interested in learning. HiLo48 ( talk) 09:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This is clearly less notable than Cavendish's record, as high jump has less news coverage than Le Tour. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment The article needs a couple of references, especially in the awards sections (the awards articles are cited so this is easy to fix), and some sentences in the prose also need sources. Other than that, all fine. If I remember correctly, we post breaking of long-standing records in athletics, as well as breaking of 100m and marathon whenever they happen (been a while since Usain Bolt but marathon got broken a couple of times in the past decade). -- Tone 08:26, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• I would be happy to support featuring this if the update was more extensive. I'd expect more details than "she broke the world record (2.10 metres) in high jump at the Wanda Diamond League in Paris." I imagine she didn't use a particularly different technique or anything, but surely we can write something about the five-second moment in which she made history? Perhaps even just an interview quote about how she felt about it? ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 09:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I used to write extensive updates on world records in athletics but got fully disparaged after an unfortunate discussion last year, so I decided to give up on it indefinitely because there's simply no point to produce content that some people don't value.-- Kiril Simeonovski ( talk) 09:58, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  That discussion last year was a very similar case – two world records being broken at the Meeting de Paris. We have a full article for this event – 2024 Meeting de Paris – which is more substantial and would make a better target than just one of the athletes. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I am very sad to hear this. This was exactly what I was worried about. I have been active on this front-page feature because I hoped it would inspire people to write more detailed articles, but instead it only demotivates people who put the work in... ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 11:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose both on WP:ITNSIGNIF and WP:ITNQUALITY. Many world records get broken frequently and don't very often meet the significance to get posted- this has way less media coverage than Mark Cavendish breaking the Tour de France record last week, which didn't get consensus to post. And Mahuchikh's article and 2024 Meeting de Paris each have 2 sentences about it, which is not enough to meet the quality threshold. Picking this world record over any others (including the other one broken at the same event) would be arbitrary as it hasn't demonstrated enough coverage. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, "Many world records get broken frequently", but this one hasn't been. That sort of comment suggests you haven't read the previous discussion. It's quite unhelpful, AND irrelevant! 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 ( talk • contribs)

Over its complete history of 102 years, the average time between changes to this particular record seems to be about two years. Andrew🐉( talk) 14:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

But this time it was 37 years!!!!!!!!!!!! You have, in fact, just highlighted why this record SHOULD be posted HiLo48 ( talk) 23:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Unsigned user comment- you have clearly ignored the fact that I pointed out this has not gained significant news coverage as needed for WP:ITNSIGNIF. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 18:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Weak oppose I don't really have much of a stance on the notability of this event, though only two sentences of an update seems too little to get a blurb. Gödel2200 ( talk) 11:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment In 2014 we posted breaking of 20-years old record in men's pole vault. Now the record was unbeaten for almost twice as long. -- Jona ☎ 13:36, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose per Andrew and Joseph; this doesn't have nearly enough coverage or significance to warrant posting on ITN. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 15:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose how many sports disciplines are there? a few hundreds at least, right? And each presumably keeps track of more than 1 record. so what makes this any special? "one of the longest standing in athletics" doesnt cut it for me, esp given that it was achieved not that logn ago. I'd presume most records would have stopped around late 80-s if it wasnt for doping Kasperquickly ( talk) 16:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose as not sufficiently significant. JoseJan89 ( talk) 18:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support Altblurb For those saying the target articles need more updating, one is just an index of the previous records, and the other about the actual athlete contains several mentions of this new achievement. Not sure where else we'd need to add more in order to post. Schwinnspeed ( talk) 22:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support, a major legacy track and field record, no woman has ever jumped this high in open competition. Notable per time between record holders. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:48, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose I'm generally biased against sports-related blurbs but I don't think this is important enough. The coverage seems pretty routine. Johndavies837 ( talk) 01:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support if the blurb targets Women's high jump world record progression, which is what the story is about. Banedon ( talk) 03:25, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  There's no prose there at all, just data. ~ Maplestrip/Mable ( chat) 06:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support in principle - I think comparisons with the Tour de France stages record are unfair. In the high jump, you jump high. That's the objective. If you jump higher than anyone else in the competition, you win, and if you jump higher than anyone before, that's unambiguously the record. In the Tour de France, you're aiming for the lowest cumulative time, not the number of individual stages won. That's not to say the stages record isn't interesting (it is) or a great achievement (it is), but it's not raising the worldwide standard for the thing the contest actually measures, and this high jump record is. We also don't often post high jump and other athletics, relative to other sports, so it's a welcome bit of focus. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 08:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Yet another support vote that completely ignores WP:ITNQUALITY- there is no article with a good enough update on this, because this WR only warrants 2 sentences in articles. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:28, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

My apologies. I have updated my !vote to be clearer. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 10:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment all these support votes are missing WP:ITNQUALITY: Yaroslava Mahuchikh has orange tagged sections, Women's high jump world record progression is just tables and uses one source (I have orange tagged it for that), 2024 Meeting de Paris has half a sentence on this world record. Regardless of the questionable WP:ITNSIGNIF, nobody has suggested a valid target article that meets ITNQUALITY by having a large update on this event and the article being good enough. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 10:32, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment This is only an improvement on the previous record by 1 cm (2.10 vs 2.09 m). Yes, its technically a new world's record, but it seems such a trivial gain in the larger picture. I also tend to agree that with as many track and field events and their individual records, its probably better to focus on the event and records broken rather than a singular one, unless that clearly smashed the previous record. -- Masem ( t) 12:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Weak oppose I would support this if we weren't about to have the Olympics. I'm basically neutral, though, because there is a decent chance this will have rolled off in two weeks when we do post that. Kingsif ( talk) 22:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Admin comment As long as the article has an orange maintenance tag, it's not going to hit the main page. Beyond that, I don't see consensus to post at this point anyway. Schwede 66 05:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Question: As an Admin ddo you judge quality of comments? Some of the opposing arguments here are simply appalling and illogical HiLo48 ( talk) 01:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Absolutely I do, HiLo48. Schwede 66 04:18, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I can't speak for Schwede, nor am I an administrator, but I believe administrators are bound to honoring community consensus regardless of their personal opinion on the merits of the prevailing argument. For instance, administrator XYZ could find it ridiculous that people are arguing against the notability of a new record in the high jump (as you evidently do, and I personally agree that it is a notable record and worthy of a blurb), but if the overall consensus ultimately disagrees with XYZ's perspective, then XYZ has to accept and respect that. To do otherwise is to supervote, which goes against the decision-making process of the Wikipedia community and can be grounds for censure or even sanction.

Having said that, there are exceptions to this rule—for instance, when the consensus among participants in a discussion goes against widely-accepted Wikipedia policy. Say, for instance, a musician has an article listing each of their unreleased songs. The article is nominated for deletion for being "cruft" and people cite things like " WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE" as a rationale for deletion. The consensus among participants is to delete, but the problem is that their rationales do not align with Wikipedia's inclusion policy; besides, the list itself is both well-written and adequately sourced, and was actually designated as a featured article at the time of the nomination. On that basis, the closing administrator determined that there was no consensus to delete the article despite the preponderance of votes against its inclusion, and his decision was upheld at WP:DRV. This is not a hypothetical situation, by the way—this was exactly what happened at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unreleased Britney Spears songs. Yes, that discussion happened nearly 12 full years ago, but the principles adhered to at the time of its closure remain applicable today. Kurtis ^(talk) 05:13, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Bur what we have here is a record that hadn't been broken for 37 years with somebody arguing against it because on average such records are broken every two years. That simply not logical, and must be ignored. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC) HiLo48 ( talk) 05:42, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

At this time of year, the breaking of sporting records seems to be a daily occurrence. I gave a few examples above and, in my own casual viewing since then, I've noticed youngest-ever goalscorer in men’s major tournament history and Wimbledon's longest women's semifinal. And public interest in those records seems significantly greater than the high jump one. Andrew🐉( talk) 06:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Given that this one hadn't been broken for 37 years, surely you can see how irrelevant that comment is. HiLo48 ( talk) 07:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The previous youngest goal scorer was Pelé in 1958, so that's 66 years ago. Is the number of years significant? What's the magic number? Andrew🐉( talk) 08:34, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ HiLo48 and Schwede66: I'm going to disagree on the notion expressed above that admins should "judge the quality of comments" when assessing ITN consensus. Unlike other areas such as AFD and RM, where there are clearly-defined policies and guidelines at play, and closing admins use those as a lens through which to view the discussion, ITN has basically no rules. Other than quality requirements and those labelled as WP:ITN/R, and I suppose a basic requirement that a topic must be "in the news" there are no guidelines as to what is and isn't posted, and each story is judged by participants on its own merits. Ultimately, if editors aren't supporting this by giving it a clear majority of support votes then it won't be posted, regardless of how important you personally think it is.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 08:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I do disregard votes likes "provincial sports trivia"; stuff that is without any basis of fact. Why would I give any weight to that? Schwede 66 10:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

"ITN has basically no rules." Well, that explains a lot. Kurtis ^(talk) 10:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support on notability. A particularly long-standing world record in women's track and field, in one of the original Olympic disciplines. Nsk92 ( talk) 13:15, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

RD: Bengt I. Samuelsson

Swedish biochemist and Nobel laureate. 240F:7A:6253:1:95E7:6EC1:9755:1E3E ( talk) 13:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose article is orange-tagged. The Kip ^{( contribs)} 17:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose two orange tags. PrinceofPunjab ^TALK 06:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Most of the wikibio is unsourced. After the intro, all remaining footnotes can be found at the end of the sentence on his death. Please add REFs to the rest of the wikibio. -- PFHLai ( talk) 00:15, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

(Posted) RD: Jane McAlevey

Staraction ( talk | contribs) 02:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Unreferenced date and place of birth. Schwede 66 10:37, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support That has been rectified. Bremps ... 13:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support Looks ready. Thriley ( talk) 20:01, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Posted Step hen 01:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

(Posted) 2024 French legislative election

Unexpected result, as the National Rally and their allies were originally predicted to get the most seats, but only came in third place after the NPF and Ensemble. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 20:08, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Wait. We still need a clearer idea of what the results were; this is a much murkier situation than last week's UK vote. (where Labour clearly won a decisive majority that lined up with expectations; contrast here where we have a surprise result) Also, given that even the article linked for "relative majority" itself is called Plurality, I would recommend the blurb actually use that to avoid confusion. Nottheking ( talk) 21:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Wait the results sections is missing information once filled support Shadow4dark ( talk) 20:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Is there a result yet? I was literally just looking at a couple of news sites, that says the far-right and fascists weren't doing as well as expected, but I didn't see any breakdowns. But hang on - I'm no expert on France politics - but the New Popular Front is alliance of over 50 political parties - including the Pirate Party and the Guadeloupe Communist Party? I'm not sure I get this one, compared to most countries where there's only up to a half-dozen viable parties. Nfitz ( talk) 21:36, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • There are indeed many parties under the NPF, although only four of them ( La France Insoumise, the Socialist Party, The Greens and the French Communist Party) have a substantial presence in the National Assembly. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 21:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Hi, I'm the primary contributor to this article. There isn't an officially aggregated national result yet, but it will be published by the Ministry of the Interior later here and added once that happens. The NFP is a broad electoral alliance of the main parties of the left as well as numerous smaller formations which had their candidates nominated in a small number of districts, as depicted here. It's an unusual situation, but with such a short timeline this was agreed upon quickly to allow the parties of the left to have the best chance of getting candidates elected rather than splitting the vote in the two-round electoral system. 73.169.176.209 ( talk) 22:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

    How long does it take for the vote to be finalized by the government? Here it can take weeks, even if the incumbent conceded within an hour of the polls closing. Surely in the interim, putting in preliminary results from a reliable source suffices in many other places. Should be the same, unless the Pirates steal some poll boxes. Nfitz ( talk) 00:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

    I missed this reply, but results are mostly set here (calculated for the alliances as noted in footnotes B and C, using the Ministry of Interior reference). 73.169.176.209 ( talk) 01:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• I've added alt1, which to me is just the best non-confusing way to explain this result. I do wish to wait for results to be updates to a certain degree we shouldn't post a blurb saying "x coalition won" or similar when most results are not confirmed to prove this yet on our end. DarkSide830 ( talk) 22:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Wait According to the table in the National results section, 501 seats in the national assembly have yet to be announced, so it is too early to post. Gödel2200 ( talk) 22:57, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The table should be updated, all but three seats have been called right now (according to Le Monde). Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 23:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  They're not aggregated by the Ministry of the Interior just yet (various news outlets create their own classifications of candidates, so the counts of votes and seats won tend to differ between them); we've always used the Ministry of the Interior ones because they're official classifications and the others are unofficial classifications. Also added alt3 but not official until tomorrow 73.169.176.209 ( talk) 23:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support once final results are put forward This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang ( talk) 00:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Provisional results have been posted and only slight shifts should be expected at this point. 73.169.176.209 ( talk) 01:32, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support Alt II pending the appointment of the new prime minister. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• I struck alt3 (after proposing it) because it might not happen anytime soon. 73.169.176.209 ( talk) 03:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Propose ALTV unless a government is somehow formed. The Kip ^{( contribs)} 02:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'd go with this if it becomes clear in the next few days that they are not going to be able to form a new government. For now I'd stick to Alt II until the dust settles. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 03:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support any of the proposed blurbs, with alt2 or 5 as my preference. Would support blurbing again if/when a new PM is chosen, since even though Attal resigned (and is continuing as caretaker) it doesn't seem like this will be resolved anytime soon. Davey2116 ( talk) 03:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support alt2 or alt4 once it’s ready Those seem like the best blurbs. However, the “Potential outcomes and pre-election comments” subsection in the “Aftermath” section seems like it’s awkward now that the election has happened. Blaylockjam10 ( talk) 04:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• I took a stab at addressing those issues here, feel free to trim or reorganise further. 73.169.176.209 ( talk) 05:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Deadlock is the word preferred by headlines such as " French Election Yields Deadlock..." and " France Faces Deadlock...". What's going to happen now seems quite unclear. Will France have to resort to a civil servant as PM like the Netherlands or what? One detail of language which is interesting is the word insoumise which appears in the name of one of the many parties. This seems to mean "unruly" and "insubordinate" and the result seems to confirm France's reputation for being ungovernable. We should avoid a blurb which gives the impression that someone has won and perhaps wait until the outcome is clearer. Andrew🐉( talk) 07:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Insoumise means "unbowed", not "unruly" or "insubordinate". 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:C4C2:46FA:6F20:8082 ( talk) 08:54, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  It literally means not soumise or not submissive. The exact meaning depends on the context but it indicates that they won't be compliant or obedient, i.e. ungovernable. Andrew🐉( talk) 09:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

That's not my understanding of this at all, and appears to be a fringe interpretation. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 09:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

My understanding comes from the Collins-Robert French Dictionary which is not fringe. It gives the meanings as refractory, rebellious, insubordinate, undefeated, unsubdued. Andrew🐉( talk) 10:53, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• I don't think the name of one of the parties should be taken as evidence that France has become ungovernable... Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 07:13, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The NYT report says "France looked near ungovernable ... The result was that ... no governing coalition appeared immediately conceivable..." while the FT headline is "France heads back to its postwar era of ungovernability". Andrew🐉( talk) 11:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Posted - I've gone with a bit of a hybrid of some of the alts above. It's been discussed before that we don't use the term plurality at ITN, as it's not widely understood globally, and I thought worth noting that the NPR also didn't achieve a majority in addition to saying they won the most seats.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 08:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I think that's a good solution. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 02:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Good hybrid, thanks! Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 07:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  2024 French legislative election currently has Lua-related template errors (likely due to having too many templates), which prevents most references from displaying correctly. Felt like this was important to note here given that the article is currently linked from the Main Page. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 11:41, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

RD: André Drege

Norwegian cyclist. -- Engineerchange ( talk) 04:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose It's a stub with a list of races and most of the prose is about his death. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 04:24, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

(Attention needed) RD: Joe Egan (musician)

Scottish musician and co-founder of Stealers Wheel. 240F:7A:6253:1:38AB:9905:A2DA:8D62 ( talk) 01:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose not ready, article needs expansion. PrinceofPunjab ^TALK 06:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose - I agree with previous comment. Little more than a stub in substance. Ref ^(chew) (do) 06:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Support article is now fully sourced. Ollieisanerd ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

(Posted) RD: Khyree Jackson

NFL cornerback recent death. -- Engineerchange ( talk) 18:26, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Support RIP, a tragic death. Article is in a good enough shape. PrinceofPunjab ^TALK 14:59, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Support nothing holding back this article about an NFL player. Bremps ... 21:07, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Support and André Drege too. Both sportsmen of the same age who had their lives tragically cut short on the same day. Both articles seem good, though Jackson's is more detailed. 1779Days ( talk) 23:11, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

We can nominate that one independently. Bremps ... 01:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Date and place of birth are both unreferenced. Schwede 66 10:35, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Schwede66: Fixed. Typically on NFL player articles that information is pulled from the ESPN or NFL biography and not appropriately cited. -- Engineerchange ( talk) 16:02, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Posted to RD. Spencer ^{T• C} 03:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

RD: Mirta Díaz-Balart

First wife of Fidel Castro. Gödel2200 ( talk) 18:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose given the lack of detail in her article, which is rated Start class. JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 03:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Wait there are some more references needed otherwise article is okay. PrinceofPunjab ^TALK 15:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Wait More citations needed. Bremps ... 22:27, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

(Posted) Masoud Pezeshkian elected President of Iran

Article:  2024 Iranian presidential election ( talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is elected President of Iran. ( Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In Iran, Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is elected president in the second round of the 2024 presidential election.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In Iran, the reformist candidate Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is elected president in the second round of the 2024 presidential election.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In Iran, the reformist candidate Masoud Pezeshkian (pictured) is declared the winner of the second round of presidential elections.
News source(s): New York Times BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by MAL MALDIVE ( talk · give credit)
• Updated by  Borgenland ( talk · give credit), Boud ( talk · give credit) and TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk · give credit)

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

He is elected president of Iran. MAL MALDIVE ( talk) 06:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• comment blurb should mention that this "election" was held by a totalitarian government headed by the dictatorial ayatollahs. Else we risk presenting it as a genuine expression of the will of the people and not a fake election no different from those under the regimes of dprk, china or soviet union which wikipedia AFAIK previously did NOT post Kasperquickly ( talk) 06:07, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  All Iranian presidential elections since 2009 have been posted to ITN. Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 07:11, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  As far as you know wikipedia didn't post any Soviet elections to ITN? That's a bold claim. -- 2001:8003:1C20:8C00:F211:A254:7DA9:FB24 ( talk) 08:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Issue is not very notable , anyone can read the whole article if they want to know election legitimacy AlexBobCharles ( talk) 13:53, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  soviet union which wikipedia AFAIK previously did NOT post

  ...you are aware Wikipedia was founded some years after the USSR ceased to exist, right?

  Your personalized commentary is becoming indicative of an attitude unfit for ITN/C, this isn't the first time it's happened. The Kip ^{( contribs)} 15:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • nods* Concur with The Kip... This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang ( talk) 03:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  We did post Xi Jinping's securing of a third term. Bremps ... 21:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support It seems that there was a significant choice between Pezeshkian and his main hardline opponent. The article is short but seems adequate in providing basic info for our readers. Andrew🐉( talk) 06:41, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose on quality article has three orange tags. Will change to support once quality issues are fixed. Aydoh8 ( talk | contribs) 07:14, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose bold article has three orange tags and Masoud Pezeshkian's article have some paragraphs without footnotes. PrinceofPunjab ^TALK 07:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support I want to note that Pezeshkian is the first reformist candidate for quite some time (I've seen The Atlantic's Arash Azizi place that date at 2005, which was the end of Khatami's term), and noting the state that the reformist parties have been as of the 2020s. Might be a potentially good idea to note that he is the reformist candidate in the blurb. Ornithoptera ( talk) 08:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support Should note that Pezeshkian is a reformist .I will note that some of the bold articles sources dont seem to very reliable and are close to the Iran government. AlexBobCharles ( talk) 13:09, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose due to three orange tags on the article. Also, there is no need to mention that Pezeshkian is a reformist in the blurb. All we should say is the result of the election. Gödel2200 ( talk) 13:34, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Wait because Pezeshkian's article is incomplete and needs further detail. 2601:280:5C01:B7E0:E19C:E87A:9597:AE72 ( talk) 14:52, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose on quality as target article is orange-tagged. The Kip ^{( contribs)} 16:27, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support; proposed altblurb to use the "declared winner" language we tend to use for dubious elections This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang ( talk) 03:32, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support; on notability -- GodNey ( talk) 08:56, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support with current wording; elections in Iran aren't free, but they are fair. No need to use "declared" or similar phrases. AryKun ( talk) 19:46, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  There's serious doubts about the fairness of elections as well, they possibly manipulated numbers in the first round, there is valid sources supporting this idea. 3000MAX ( talk) 21:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  +1 Jeeputer ^Talk 03:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support for its notability. Although the article is currently orange-tagged, this is related to the lack of attention from enough fluent Persian speakers (or people able to use auto-translators sufficiently well). The benefit of the extra attention of ITN may help improve the quality of the article sufficiently to justify the removing the tags, so an exception to the general rule may be acceptable in this case. Boud ( talk) 20:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose on quality this election is WP:ITNR, so only consideration is article quality (thus all the "support on notability" votes are irrelevant). And there are 3 valid orange tags that need fixing. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:50, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Comment - by which criterion is this WP:ITN/R? The government bit says "Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government", but our article President of Iran notes that "Unlike the executive in other countries, the president of Iran does not have full control over the government, which is ultimately under the direct control of the Supreme Leader". Thus this role is somewhat more of a figurehead and should be judged on its own merits rather than being given an automatic pass.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 09:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I would imagine it was marked as ITNR because it was thought to be a general election. Looking at the three different elections that took place in Iran this year, it is not at all clear to me which one was the general election, so this might not be ITNR. Gödel2200 ( talk) 11:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The president of Iran does not hold the highest political authority, but does have many of the powers of an executive president, and is not just a figurehead. Among the Reformist presidents, Khatami was generally seen as having a big influence; Rouhani's reformist actions were generally seen as less successful; Ahmedinejad's role as a hardliner president was generally seen as him being mostly in control of executive power. Relations between the West and Iran have changed significantly between Reformist and hardliner Iranian presidents. This does satisfy ITN/R in any reasonable interpretation of real political power and both national and international effects. Boud ( talk) 19:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think there is any question of whether this election should be posted. But ITNR specifically says changes in the people who administer the executive of their country qualify, and according to the List of current heads of state and government article, that position is the supreme leader, not the president, so the election would technically not qualify for ITNR under that clause. Gödel2200 ( talk) 21:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

In Iran, the president is the head of government. See President of Iran. He chooses all ministers and cabinet members. The supreme leader is the head of state, but not the head of government. 175.159.120.175 ( talk) 09:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The issue with ITN/R is that it assumes that only one position (in this case, the supreme leader) wields all of the executive power; it neglects to consider the fact that there can be other positions with some form of executive power (in this case, the president) that the main position itself lacks. The ITN/R status of " 2023 Singaporean presidential election", which had a similar context, was debated under the same rationale (and later removed), though it was still ultimately posted. =JaventheAldericky= ( Would you like to talk to me?) 14:25, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support altblurb 2 as the orange tags have been addressed. =JaventheAldericky= ( Would you like to talk to me?) 14:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support altblurb 2 Article looks good now. -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 05:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support altblurb 2 per supports on notability and INT/R both. Tags are now gone; it’s ready to post. Jusdafax ( talk) 08:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support altblurb 2 per above. VR _{(Please ping on reply)} 15:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Posted. Spencer ^{T• C} 02:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

(Posted) RD: Liana Isakadze

Prominent Georgian violinist, child prodigy, all over Europe early, then also conductor and artistic director of the Chamber Orchestra of Georgia, festival creator internationally. The article was practically a mirror of her website, which is no longer live but there in an archived copy in German. Much better since we got a Strad obit today. The long lists of conductors and colleagues are not referenced other than her site, but are credible I think. Help by someone knowing Georgian wanted. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 10:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Slight oppose The stuff about Facebook is uncited. Listing a paragraph of names isn't the best way to present info to a reader. Otherwise, the article is alright. Bremps ... 12:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The facebook thing can only be cited to her website, which I try to avoid. We could do it, or drop it, or find another ref. - I hate these lists, I really do, but - as I said above - I have no time to look for more detailed records of her music making. Repeating: help wanted. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:22, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I added the cite to her website. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 06:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

... and also another, and began recordings. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 05:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

We have now several recordings, with a few reviews, Bremps. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Great work on that, I'll Support. The name-dropping paragraph is still not ideal but I don't think it's bad enough to prevent it from being posted. Bremps ... 23:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Posted to RD. Good depth of coverage, fully referenced. Spencer ^{T• C} 02:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

RD: Stanley Moss

Staraction ( talk | contribs) 16:45, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Question Are the books in his bibliography fine if they aren't cited (as they are effectively their own citation)? Anyway, the Amazon links certainly need to be removed so Oppose for now. Bremps ... 04:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

They are their own citation, but they require ISBNs. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 15:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose The even more fundamental problem is that the article is a stub, and we don't post those. Schwede 66 05:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC) reply

RD: Vic Seixas

American tennis player. 240F:7A:6253:1:64C5:9819:81E5:D319 ( talk) 23:43, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Support article is in a good shape. PrinceofPunjab ^TALK 15:04, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• The stats tables after the prose could use some sources, please. Thanks. -- PFHLai ( talk) 01:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

RD: Jon Landau (film producer)

American film producer. 240F:7A:6253:1:64C5:9819:81E5:D319 ( talk) 23:16, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose Awards and Filmography section needs sourcing and Career section needs a lot of expansion. PrinceofPunjab ^TALK 15:05, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

(Posted) United Kingdom general election

Article:  2024 United Kingdom general election ( talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party (leader Keir Starmer pictured) wins the general election. ( Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Labour Party (leader Keir Starmer pictured) wins a landslide victory in the United Kingdom general election
Alternative blurb II: ​ Keir Starmer becomes Prime Minister of the United Kingdom after his Labour Party wins a landslide victory in the general election (after he becomes PM, probably tomorrow morning)
News source(s): https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cn09xn9je7lt
Credits:

• Nominated by orbitalbuzzsaw ( talk · give credit)

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Putting this out in front so we can get it ready as and when results come in overnight This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang ( talk) 22:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Clearly, we're going to need sources to use the second blurb re being a landslide, though I know the exit polls suggest it will be that way. -- Masem ( t) 22:46, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  BBC says "Labour landslide predicted", as do most other sources This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang ( talk) 22:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Not just the BBC. Sky News, the Telegraph, the Guardian ... in fact most UK news sources ... are already using it on their front pages (although at the moment it of course says "predicted" or "expected"). But yes, stick with the original blurb, we can always change it later. Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Meh. I'm not going to get worked up over it, but FWIW I don't recall the word "landslide" ever being used in an election blurb before. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  No, we rarely use such terms on the Main Page in my experience. Granted, I have been away for a while. If anything, we may choose to use a less bombastic phrasing such as "significant gain in seats", or something more British. ---  C& C ( Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support original blurb. It's factual and to the point. We can update tomorrow after Sir Kier becomes PM. The votes are still being counted but there is no doubt who won. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 22:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support either original Blurb or AltBlurb II. (later purely among the implication that's part of ITN/R: that this will mean Keir Starmer becomes PM) Obviously, we'll be waiting for the official results (rather than just the exit polls) and such to make it official. Article appears to be in great shape; hopefully this quality will be maintained through all the official results being added. I'm somewhat neutral (mildly opposed) on whether we should bother describing the margin of the election. However, if there's an applicable superlative, (e.g, it break's Labour's old record for most seats won) then that would have a much more convincing argument to be mentioned on the front page. Nottheking ( talk) 01:22, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support original blurb as it is the most concise. -- MtPenguinMonster ( talk) 02:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support original blurb but wait until the full results come out. I don't really see much of a need for the blurb to indicate that the result was a landslide; the reader will see that immediately after going to the page. The blurb only needs to state who won the election. Gödel2200 ( talk) 02:33, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support original blurb and wait Good article, important event. Results are pretty clear but post after the votes are fully done being counted Hungry403 ( talk) 03:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I think its fair to call it a landslide now Hungry403 ( talk) 04:27, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support. Sunak just conceded, effectively. Toss-up between original blurb and alt-1. Moscow Mule ( talk) 03:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support original blurb unless the ultimate seat count surpasses Labour's old record for most seats won, in which case support alt-1 or alt-2 and add the superlative, per Nottheking. Flip ^and Flopped ツ 04:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support original blurb as it's now official. Oppose alt blurbs until sources use the phrase "landslide" — Czello ^{( music)} 04:10, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support, with "landslide" wording; they're on course to 400, which is Blair numbers. Sceptre ( talk) 04:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Posted As Labour has already got more than 50 per cent of the electorate seats (362 right now, with 326 needed for a majority), it's probably safe to post ALT0 at this point. I don't think it'll be long before "landslide" can be added to the blurb. Schwede 66 04:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  There have been other "landslide" elections. Have we ever used that term in an election blurb? - Ad Orientem ( talk) 04:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Not at all. I don't think we've ever done such a thing, and the Conservatives arguably won a landslide last time. I'm a little baffled as to why Schwede66 has suggested this and strongly recommend that no admin should change this.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 07:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support ALT or ALT2 blurb as Labour has now won 400 seats, I think we're now ready to add "landslide" now. 92.27.253.187 ( talk) 05:34, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support landslide. Davey2116 ( talk) 06:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support alt-1 as it is more condense. '''[[ User:CanonNi]]''' ( talk • contribs) 06:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Majority would be a better word than "landslide". ITN should save the word "landslide" for the actual landslides that kill lots of people (they seem to have stopped counting in New Guinea). For elections, we should stick to words that more accurately describe the result such as supermajority. Simply winning a majority is a significant achievement when so many countries have systems that require complex coalitions such as we see in the current Netherlands blurb. Andrew🐉( talk) 06:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  We don't generally use the term supermajority for this, in the UK. Secretlondon ( talk) 07:25, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  That doesn't matter because Labour don't seem to have quite that many seats (433 is two thirds of 650). The point is to use appropriate technical terms rather than colourful journalistic metaphors. In the Westminster system, the key thing is to get a "working majority". Andrew🐉( talk) 07:46, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Strong oppose landslide or majority or anything else. Longstanding precedent is that we don't attempt to add "nuance" or editorialisation to election results, even those that are "disputed" or "near-unanimous" or whatever, and there's no reason to deviate from that here. The current simple blurb that they won is completely sufficient and should not be changed.  —  Amakuru ( talk) 07:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The convention in Britain is that a 100-seat majority is a landslide; Labour have won a 170-seat majority. If anything qualifies, this does. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang ( talk) 07:18, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  What convention? See Landslides in the United Kingdom. Andrew🐉( talk) 07:59, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  That seems a bit disingenuous, Andrew Davidson. See United Kingdom general election records#Most seats won by party (1945–present). The current result is just barely below the all-time post-war record. (though I don't see a need to change the blurb). Nfitz ( talk) 21:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose landslide as an editorialising term. "Supermajority" isn't great either as the Parliament does not operate with a supermajority system as far as I know (no equivalent of, say, the 60-vote filibuster in the US Senate). Stating that Labour won a majority by themselves (and, when confirmed, that Starmer becomes PM) is the most objective thing to do. Chaotic Enby ( talk · contribs) 07:39, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  In the Westminster system, a substantial majority is significant because it means that the PM can force through legislation without having to appease rebels and rivals in his own party. See the US House of Representatives for the difficulty of getting things done with a narrow majority. Andrew🐉( talk) 07:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support - I find it funny this was nominated before any seat was even called. It might be good to mention just how historic this win is, the worst result for the Conservative Party I believe in its entire 200 year existence. This is a pretty crazy result as the dominant party in UK politics is going extinct. PrecariousWorlds ( talk) 08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  The popular vote for the Conservatives was still quite substantial while the vote for Labour was little changed. The result in seats was a typical quirk of the first-past-the-post system. The main novelty is the advent of Reform UK which got the next largest popular vote and so split the centre-right vote.

  What helped Labour is that their leader looks and sounds like a conservative -- a safe pair of hands, rather than a radical like Corbyn, a wild child like Boris or a city slicker like Rishi. It's interesting that our blurb calls him "Sir Keir Starmer", like a " knight of the shires". Andrew🐉( talk) 08:53, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I see that the title has been removed now as admins tussle over the blurb. Andrew🐉( talk) 08:58, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Pull. While obviously this is notable, 2024_United_Kingdom_general_election#Results is not updated. 12:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC) ~~ Jessintime ( talk) 12:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Those look like numerical results once the full complete tally is known. The results that Labour won was based on factors like sufficient tallies from the various locals as well as candidates conceding that they lost, all reported in RSes. —  Masem ( t) 12:19, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply
    • Jessintime There's currently 2 seats to go (out of 650), until those are declared, these "results" figures don't exist. But that doesn't change the outcome that Labour have won, a fact that was confirmed in reliable sources before this was posted. And the article has been updated with this information and aftermath, and so WP:ITNQUALITY is met. We have posted other countries in a similar state i.e. where 95+% of results are known and the election result is assured. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 12:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Standard practice for ITN has been to post once the general outcome has been confirmed, since it's rare to instantly get total figures for every single constituent election from any country. There will always be stragglers, so yes, there will be some small gaps in the data as everyone in the world waits for those stragglers. However, it remains that all the RSes have reported that Labour has won a majority of seats, and that won't change. And Keir Starmer has already been appointed Prime Minister. Nottheking ( talk) 20:29, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  I'll just reply here since this is pretty much moot. My concern is that we posted an article on an election with an entire results table left blank. Did we really need to wait until all 650 seats were called before updating it? I've seen other stories held up for far less. ~~ Jessintime ( talk) 21:04, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

RD: Jack Rowell

Nominator's comments: Needs an infobox but only a few more citations.  Abcmaxx ( talk) 10:45, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose There are CN tags. User:MAL MALDIVE (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose multiple cn tags. PrinceofPunjab ^TALK 07:55, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose issue persists. Bremps ... 22:30, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

(Closed) Mark Cavendish

(Closed) 2024 Ukrainian coup attempt allegations

(Posted) RD: Rick Cluff

Canadian Radio host and journalist. Ktin ( talk) 14:54, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Support Article quality seems alright. Bremps ... 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Posted. -- PFHLai ( talk) 02:47, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

RD: Jean Daubigny

French civil servant and criminal convicted of tax evasion. Jmanlucas ( talk) 05:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Support meets bare minimum requirement. PrinceofPunjab ^TALK 07:57, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It has a deprecated controversy section. Probably not postable as is. Bremps ... 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

RD: Aydos Sadykov

Kazakh opposition figure who died after an assassination attempt in Kyiv. Article will need some sourcing work. Gödel2200 ( talk) 14:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose One of the sections does not cite any sources. Needs ref improve. MAL MALDIVE ( talk) 17:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support I've fixed the last of the CN tags and it appears the page is very well sourced now. I'll ping @ MAL MALDIVE to see if they would like to change their opinion. Jmanlucas ( talk) 01:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  • Support Yes, after the fix, i would support. Looks like the article is in a good standard. MAL MALDIVE ( talk) 04:36, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose biography section have some unsourced statements. PrinceofPunjab ^TALK 07:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

(Closed) BB(5) discovery

(Posted) Dick Schoof (Netherlands PM)

Article:  Dick Schoof ( talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Dick Schoof becomes Prime Minister of the Netherlands. ( Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Dick Schoof is sworn in as Prime Minister of the Netherlands.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In the Netherlands, a new cabinet is sworn in with independent politician Dick Schoof serving as prime minister.
Alternative blurb III: ​ In the Netherlands, Dick Schoof succeeds four-term prime minister Mark Rutte.
News source(s): AP
Credits:

• Nominated by Classicwiki ( talk · give credit)
• Updated by  Jochem van Hees ( talk · give credit)

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

One interesting thing about this succession is that Schoof is not part of the coalition party. Mark Rutte was PM for 13+ years, will serve as the next SG of NATO (1 October), which was just made official on 26 June. -- Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 19:45, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support It's interesting that he's not just not a member of the coalition parties but that he's not an elected politician. Instead, he's a civil servant and previously in charge of the security service. Deep state needs a section for the Netherlands... Andrew🐉( talk) 21:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support change of head of government is ITN/R This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang ( talk) 21:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Support because he succeeded 13-year incumbent Mark Rutte, and this concludes government appointment from the November 2023 Dutch election. JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 23:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• support blurb II article seems okay and new prime minister after 14 years.. Shadow4dark ( talk) 03:55, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Link it to the election. Doesn't have to be bold, but it's obviously correlated. Not with rutte at nato too. 49.205.145.3 ( talk) 09:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support alt2 and the article seems to be of decent quality. Gödel2200 ( talk) 12:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Posted ALT2. Schwede 66 00:33, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

(Posted) 2024 Uttar Pradesh stampede

Article will need some work before it's ready. Estreyeria ( talk) 13:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Agree once the article is expanded. Sheila1988 ( talk) 14:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support but wait until the event is over and all information has been reported on. JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 14:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support when ready death toll is quite high but article needs a lot of expansion before it is ready to be posted. PrinceofPunjab ^TALK 15:57, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose. This could have some form of widespread significance, but we don't know that right now, so we can't support based on that. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 00:31, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Oppose The article needs work to be as clear as the NYT report. That says that such events are "relatively common" and so WP:NEWSEVENT applies. Andrew🐉( talk) 07:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support Large number of causalities, and injured. A significant event, not a common occurrencee. Now reached to 121 deaths. TheHindu report. Numancia ( talk) 08:59, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support Significant event, with very high number of casualties. Similar to Hajj incident recently. Samuelled ( talk) 14:25, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support - Big news, article is decent quality Poxy4 ( talk) 17:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support. Tragic accident with a high number of deaths. Article structure looks good enough. 🛧 Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 22:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  What evidence do you have that it was accidental? RS are calling it a disaster and some have been arrested already. We've got to be careful with that word. Dreameditsbrooklyn ( talk) 20:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose While this event has a high number of casualties, the article gives no indication of lasting significance. Gödel2200 ( talk) 00:02, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Posted Step hen 00:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Post-posting support how often do we update the death toll of disasters? The main page still says 110, while RS says it has risen to 121. Bremps ... 17:13, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  ITN is still technically correct, as it says at least 110. Admins do update death tolls, but I do not expect them to keep track of daily changes. Natg 19 ( talk) 17:52, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

(Closed) 2024 Seoul car crash

RD: Robert Towne

Staraction ( talk | contribs) 02:45, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: The more extensive the credits, the more pain in sourcing. Needs more citations all over. Just watched Chinatown too. -- Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 02:54, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose various unsourced statements, cn tags and largely unsourced Filmography. PrinceofPunjab ^TALK 07:59, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

RD: June Leaf

Staraction ( talk | contribs) 13:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Not ready entire work section have only two sources. PrinceofPunjab ^TALK 16:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Oppose Tone issues, including usage of "we". Bremps ... 20:30, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

(Posted) José Raúl Mulino becomes President of Panama

Article:  José Raúl Mulino ( talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ José Raúl Mulino becomes President of Panama. ( Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ José Raúl Mulino is sworn in as President of Panama.
Alternative blurb II: ​ After winning the Panamanian general election, José Raúl Mulino becomes President of [Panama.
News source(s): AP
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Classicwiki ( talk · give credit)
• Created by BastianMAT ( talk · give credit)
• Updated by  190.219.24.14 ( talk · give credit) and 219.77.28.65 ( talk · give credit)

The nominated event is listed on WP:ITN/R, so each occurrence is presumed to be important enough to post. Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article and update meet WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

-- Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 21:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Updated image. --04:03, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Oppose - This is just the swearing-in. The election was two months ago; we discussed it, but didn't manage to get it posted. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 21:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ GenevieveDEon, thats why I nominated. 2024 Panamanian general election was not posted. Doesn't this meet the WP:ITN/R qualification of: Changes in the holder of the office which administers the executive of their respective state/government... except when that change was already posted as part of a general election? Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 22:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  You're both right. This is just as recurrent as the election item and just as subject to not getting posted after a discussion. It all depends who discusses what and how from here out. InedibleHulk ( talk) 03:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support given that we didn't post the election This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang ( talk) 04:56, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support Alt2 Article is of decent quality, and we should post this as the election itself didn't get posted. I would suggest posting alt2, as the first two blurbs don't actually say how he became the president, only that he is now the president. Gödel2200 ( talk) 13:20, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Support on notability. BilboBeggins ( talk) 16:30, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Posted Step hen 00:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Post-posting support - The arguments above are reasonable, and it's good to have a relevant political story to post. Thanks, everyone. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 09:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

(Posted) Hurricane Beryl

Article:  Hurricane Beryl ( talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Hurricane Beryl makes landfall in Grenada, causing extensive damage. ( Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Hurricane Beryl, the earliest recorded Category 5 in the Atlantic Ocean basin, makes landfall in the Caribbean.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Hurricane Beryl, the earliest-recorded Category 5 Atlantic Hurricane, kills at least 16 people in the Windward Islands and Venezuela
Alternative blurb III: ​ Hurricane Beryl, the earliest-recorded Category 5 Atlantic Hurricane, kills at least 22 people in the Caribbean and Venezuela.
News source(s): CNN NBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Gödel2200 ( talk · give credit)

Category 4 hurricane which is still active. Gödel2200 ( talk) 21:12, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Comment: it is now a category 5. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 17:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I thought about nominating this article. One notable aspect about this hurricane is that it is the earliest Category 4 Category 5 on record in the Atlantic Ocean. If this gets posted, this information might be worth mentioning in the blurb. I have proposed an alt (which might need some tweaks). -- Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 21:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC) Updated alt. -- Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 16:53, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Wait/Oppose. Full impacts aren't known yet, however the article body does not yet substantiate the "extensive damage" claim at the moment. The record, while interesting, is very much trivia, and a record for being category 4 is obscure. Cat 5 maybe we can talk, but not a category 4 record. DarkSide830 ( talk) 21:36, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  It is a category 5. It got up to 165 mph. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 17:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Wait for the hurricane's impact to see the full extent of the damage. The hurricane is ongoing. JohnAdams1800 ( talk) 21:40, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Wait until we know more about the human impact of the storm. It's early in the season, and both this storm and other storms may yet cause more damage. As it stands, I'd oppose, but I don't want to pre-empt things as the situation develops. GenevieveDEon ( talk) 21:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Wait For the most part, breaking specific intensity records don't warrant inclusion here. It might merit inclusion depending on impacts/ TornadoLGS ( talk) 02:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Wait: Per others. At time of writing this, further land impacts are likely to occur in the coming week per the NHC forecast and model guidance. The full extent of this storm's impact has yet to be seen. Comment: Additionally, Beryl has recently attained category 5 intensity, breaking Hurricane Emily's record for earliest cat 5 storm in basin, though it is not expected to impact any land as a cat 5 storm. Changing to Support per others; this storm's impact is clearly notable, especially for the time of year and locations impacted. ArkHyena ( talk) 07:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Comment: a high end category 3 would still cause severe impacts on Jamaica; to which it is headed towards them in the next day or so. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 17:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Wait for impacts to be known, and for potential subsequent landfalls. While it is true that this storm is remarkable from a meteorological perspective, ITN posts based on the real world effects a storm has on populated areas. It is still very possible it could warrant posting in the future, but not right now.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 12:32, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Blurb probably needs updating as its now Cat5 (and the earliest one at that) -- Masem ( t) 12:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  @ Masem @ DarkSide830. I have updated the alt. -- Classicwiki ( talk) If you reply to me here, please ping me. 16:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Wait/Oppose A large hurricane in the middle of the ocean that isn't forecasted to make another landfall until it weakens substantially due to a significant amount of sheer in its path isn't quite notable enough for blurbing. Let's see what develops over the next few days. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 14:02, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• I agree on waiting, but just want to clarify that this isn't accurate according to current forecasts. It's expected to slam into Jamaica at major hurricane intensity tomorrow.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 14:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Weak support/wait I think once Beryl passes Jamaica, I’ll be inclined to support inclusion in the “In the News” section. But let’s wait until then. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 17:19, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Changing vote to strong support given verified impacts in Jamaica as well as the Windward Islands. West Virginia WXeditor ( talk) 04:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Support – I think the Windward Islands impacts and record status are already enough before it hits Jamaica; no need to wait in my mind. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 08:37, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Support alt version: (There has never been an earlier Cat 4 either; perhaps the blurb should say "Category 4 or Category 5" rather than just "Category 5".) It has broken multiple records, has killed at least 16 people so far, and is bearing down on Jamaica. After that it will move on toward Mexico. We should highlight it before it's all in the past tense. —⁠ ⁠ BarrelProof ( talk) 18:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
  • Keep in mind that we summarize news, even current news. We aren't hear to be a weather warning system, and may be more appropriate to figure extent of damage after more time has passed. —  Masem ( t) 19:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply
• Wait/Support. Although the hurricane is still active and the damage it will cause later on are still unknown, the damage it caused so far might be reasonable enough for the ITN. Also, I would like to propose a new blub: " Hurricane Beryl leaves at least 16 people dead across the Windward Islands and Venezuela." 🛧 Midori No Sora♪🛪 ( ☁＝☁＝✈) 22:20, 3 July 2024 (UTC) reply