Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates: Difference between revisions

• Support I read "Bavaria" as "Bolivia" and so was surprised to see a German politician. Looks to be sourced and in good shape to post, AGF on German language. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Raymond Allen (scriptwriter)

• Support Article is in good shape. Looks ready to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tommy Boggs

• Support Another short and well-referenced article. Looks good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:04, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 05:19, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Articles: Carolyn Bertozzi (talk · history · tag) and Morten P. Meldal (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Nobel Prize in Chemistry is awarded to Carolyn Bertozzi (pictured), Karl Barry Sharpless and Morten P. Meldal for their work on click chemistry and bioorthogonal chemistry. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

• Nominated by Alsoriano97 (talk · give credit)

Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on

WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Meldal's article needs some work and there's an orange-tagged subsection in Bertozzi's. _-_Alsor (talk) 10:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

• Support. But I suggest putting the image of Barry Sharpless, for now he is part of the select list of five individuals with two Nobel Prizes. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  it's clear that this's notorious. But let's see if someone can make a collage with the photos of the three laureates. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Article is fine for a Nobel prize winner, Alex-h (talk) 15:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Nope, sourcing issues on two of them are blocking this. Masem (t) 15:20, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now,
  Carolyn R. Bertozzi has more problems: several awards are uncited and so is a big chunk of the Personal life section. Morten P. Meldal has the biggest problems of the bunch: the entire achievements sections and almost the entire awards section is unsourced. Curbon7 (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Seems pretty much good to go now. Curbon7 (talk) 03:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Masem: -- remind me, was it you who had helped create a composite image with all the prize winners combined into a single image the last time? If so, please can you do that this year as well? Ktin (talk) 16:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I've boldly commented out paragraphs or whole article sections that were poorly cited or without any citations. That makes the Morten P. Meldal article look much more sparse but it's still a valid bio. I suggest that in their current form, the three articles make the cut. Schwede66 00:12, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Meldal's page still has lots of unsourced text. They all seem to only have one sentence updates, failing
  WP:ITNCRIT:

  The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable.

  —Bagumba (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  What else are you going to be able to say about winning the Nobel? That's at most a one- or two-sentence update as any effects that would have are longer term. Masem (t) 15:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: César Mascetti

• Support Appears well-sourced; no issues.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 04:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Jerry Vainisi

• Support I've referenced the only unsourced part. Good to go now.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Joan Hotchkis

• Support Article is in good shape for posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:20, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Aaron Judge's 62nd Home Run

Consensus to post is unlikely to develop.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:45, 5 October 2022 (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: Aaron Judge (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Aaron Judge hits his 62nd home run of the season breaking Roger Maris's record, set in 1961, of 61 home runs for most hit in a single American League season. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

• Nominated by TartarTorte (talk · give credit)
• Created by Yankees10 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: I am open to new blurb. I more just wanted to see what people thought of this news item itself. TartarTorte 00:46, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Look, I'm a huge baseball fan, and a Yankees fan. Even though Judge is my favorite player since Jeter, I can't support this. The MLB record is 73, set by Barry Bonds. As much as we might like to overlook the steroid champion, we can't. Great for Judge, bad for the Yankees if he signs elsewhere as a free agent. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Confused What, exactly, has been achieved here? The article linked is behind a paywall or wants me to sign up, so I looked elsewhere and found this. It shows this achievement at seventh place among the MLB all-time single-season home run list. Do American League players not hit as many home runs? (SIGNED: A non-American interested in baseball.) HiLo48 (talk) 01:37, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  There were some records for single-season home run leader, then Babe Ruth came and broke them all. His personal best was 60 in the 1927 season. Then, Roger Maris hit 61 in 1961. Those were both in the American League. Then, Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa both broke Maris' record in 1998 while playing in the National League. And Barry Bonds also surpassed it. The issue at play, and the only reason we're talking about the "American League record", is because McGwire, Sosa, and Bonds used performance-enhancing drugs. So, many don't see their records as "genuine", and are putting Judge's accomplishment this season ahead of the steroided seasons. But, MLB still recognizes 73 as the single-season home run record for MLB. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. I'll think about this. HiLo48 (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Roger Maris Jr. has been pushing the idea that his father is still the "legit" record holder. Surely he's biased. I am so, so biased in favor of Judge and the Yankees myself, and Judge is having an amazing season. But, Bonds is still the record holder. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  This is one of the biggest records in baseball. The 3 guys you saw were all in peak steroid era (1998-2001, though the steroid era extended deeper into the 90s and 2000s then they started drug testing). The American League actually has slightly more home runs but by luck the 3 highest dopers were in the other sub-league of the top league. Unlike the Olympics major league baseball doesn't revoke accomplishments for cheating (the Houston team literally won the yearly world championship while cheating a few years ago and was punished but they didn't revoke their win). In cricket terms a home run is a six (each bounce boundary only causes a bit under 1 run on average, a bigger dropoff than 6 vs 4 in cricket) but there's only c. 1 home run per game per team on average and they cause 1.something (1.7-1.8 I think) out of 4.3 runs per game per team on average so they're actually rarer than soccer World Cup goals and about as valuable. In baseball you can fail to score even if you safely run 90 yards before fielders can get the ball to you, but just hit it over the boundary (300 to 400 feet away) and your team's guaranteed 1-4 runs (4 if you have 3 "batting partners"). Average c. 27 wickets and 140 deliveries per team in a Twenty20-length game and only 1 homer and 4-5 runs. 5 in the steroid and human growth hormone era. The recordholder literally injected etc so much of those drugs his skull visibly grew and he set it pimply-backed and muscular like a Greek god at age 36 after being skinny as a young man. Our roided up role models also got the side effect of small testicles and low ball testosterone, higher body fat, heart risk etc. Some of this damage is permanent. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:30, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The National League was always better at small ball. Levivich (talk) 07:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, regrettably. Many people regard this as the real record, but sadly it is only officially the AL record. IMO AL/NL records are not ITN worthy (and very possibly not MLB records as a whole, but that may be a topic for another day). DarkSide830 (talk) 02:15, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As pointed out, this is not the MLB record, just the AL record. --Masem (t) 02:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is literally inside baseball. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:36, 5 October 2022 (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.

RD: Loretta Lynn

• Support Blurb - Country music legend. CoatCheck (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb when ready. Being the most awarded female country artist in history and the article calling out "her groundbreaking role" certainly lean Lynn being transformative in her field. rawmustard (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment just don't forget to evaluate the quality of the article. I remain neutral on blurb, because country music is a genre that generally has popularity in a very specific country, so we are hardly in front of a singer massively popular worldwide. _-_Alsor (talk) 16:07, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lots of sections without sources. Needs a lot of work just to get to RD. Not against a urb, but the quality isn't yet there for it. --Masem (t) 16:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Ready for the
  usual reason. Will likely support a blurb if the article can be brought up to scratch. Subject was a titan in the country music genre. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose blurb I don’t agree that she was so influential in the history of country music. A great singer yes, but no contribution at all in popularising country music worldwide, which is what would make her transformative. She was definitely not of the same stature as Johnny Cash, Willie Nelson, Kenny Rogers or Dolly Parton.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:04, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  If that's that's the company we're talking about, Rolling Stone [3] ranked them: 49.Rogers, 8.Parton, 6.Nelson, 4.Lynn, 3.Cash. Wide Open Country has Lynn, Cash, Parton, & Nelson among the 30 greatest. Bilboard [4] has 25.Rogers, 9.Lynn 5.Parton, 3.Nelson, 2.Cash GreatCaesarsGhost 19:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t say it. I’d rather argue that Hank Williams was perhaps the most influential country singer of all time but can’t include him because he died literally before all these four began their careers. Cash made a global tour to popularise country, Rogers and Parton did popularise it through their crossover music, but Lynn did not succeed in popularising it in any way. Country isn’t a mainstream music genre worldwide so that we can post a blurb for many singers. There must be something else other than a good voice that makes someone transformative.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  You are welcome to whatever criteria you'd like to apply, but "transformative" was removed from the criteria for death blurbs some time ago. [5]GreatCaesarsGhost 20:26, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Blurb subject to sourcing being fixed - perhaps as she was considered old style country rather than the crossover style she didn't appeal to that mass market like Dolly or Kenny, but a huge star and one of the most important country music figures nonetheless. RIP Josey Wales ^Parley 19:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Longtime household name among fans of U.S. country music. Widely covered. – Sca (talk) 19:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support more than enough evidence for her to be considered a noteworthy death per above. She may not have crossed over, but the evidence is overwhelming that she was iconic within the genre. If Jeff Carson can be on the front page, so can she.

Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 22:09, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Jeff Carson was posted to RD only. We’re discussing whether Lynn should get a blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose It doesn't matter how important she was when the article is at least 50 citations short of being suitable for the Main Page. Black Kite (talk) 22:46, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD. Article is a long way away, but remember that this woman wrote most of her own material. RIP. -SusanLesch (talk) 23:34, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose ...until a lot more citations are found for the article. It is hopelessly under-sourced. And I can't see why a blurb is needed here. There is nothing blurbworthy about her death. She was obviously well known in her country, but I haven't seen blurbs for performers equally well known in other countries. HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality. Per HiLo48, Black Kite, et al. I also notice that the article is orange-tagged at the top saying it has “Multiple Issues,” which is usually not the best of signs when it comes to article quality. 2600:6C44:237F:ACCB:B043:B00D:FAA5:596E (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Way short on references. (Also oppose a blurb, if it ever gets that far.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support She’s way too influential to be ignored. The quality of the article is fine, but I understand we’re picky. Just a shame such a titan is being ignored… Donignacio (talk) 01:10, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Donignacio, this is a long section for someone who is allegedly being "ignored". Help us fix the article and it'll be posted sooner. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on the “nomination” page is not what I meant. The article itself appears in my estimation to be comprehensive, but I’m not picky. At this point, the time has passed, I’m afraid. I just wonder if there’s other motives at play. Donignacio (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Articles that are boldly linked on the main page need to be of high quality to represent WP's best work. Her article may be comprehensive, but its sourcing is presently shoddy and not representative of WP's best. That needs to be fixed before it can be posted. Masem (t) 12:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck do people expect items to be posted in less than 24 hours? We've had anomalies of items that get posted even faster than that, sure, but it's not the norm around here. I'll never believe that it is. 🌈WaltCip-(talk) 14:18, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you don't know how things work at ITN/C does not excuse the lack of good faith you are presuming with that other motives crack. Our motive is posting sourced content. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:22, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m making an observation that, in my opinion, there is an injustice. An opportunity to highlight a transformative female figure lost. But sure, I’ll make it my personal mission to improve Loretta Lynn’s Wikipedia article. Donignacio (talk) 02:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That thing you just sarcastically dismissed- making it your personal mission to improve articles- is our entire purpose in being here. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was being serious. I just can’t improve the article at this particular moment. If I wanted to get sarcastic, I’d have brought up all the cricket players who show up on the front page. Donignacio (talk) 13:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb, RD blurbs should be reserved for cases where sourcing could support a separate article on the death and funeral of the person. This occurs quite often, and is an indicator of how important the person was in the real world, instead of in the minds of those debating here. Abductive (reasoning) 06:31, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not true at all. The ability or existence of separate death article is a very likely reason to post a blurb, but not limited to that. Masem (t) 12:38, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course it's true, as it is an opinion of mine and of some other editors. I will state my opinion every time a non-blurb-worthy person is nominated. Abductive (reasoning) 15:28, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb American country music fans is a pretty niche demographic, kinda like French hip hop fans or something. Not known widely enough for a blurb imo. AryKun (talk)

Incredible though it may seem to some of us, there are fans of 'American' country music outside the U.S. – Sca (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Garth Brooks last month sold out an 80,000 capacity stadium in Dublin, Ireland on each of the 5 nights he performed Josey Wales ^Parley 21:45, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As did Michael Bublé and Robbie Williams, who are way more famous. I may enjoy a night in with a Bollywood film, a souvlaki take away, and a game of mahjong, but just as enjoying those things do not make those things any less Indian, Greek and Chinese respectively, neither does the fact people may enjoy country music outside the US make it any less American. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:16, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed also French hip hop fans outside of the francophone world. Though I would very much love to blurb top-of-their-field people in niche genres, we'll also get Dolly Parton and Bob Dylan as US country blurbs in the future. US country is represented just fine, and Lynn isn't quite up there. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:27, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind French hip-hop, we didn't even consider blurbing recently deceased American world hip-hop star Coolio! Abcmaxx (talk) 12:00, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can imagine a few world-famous American hip-hop stars we will certainly blurb when the time comes! Hopefully this won't be for a long time, however, as they're all still quite young ^_^ ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:31, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He was 59. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb It's very US-centric fame and a niche music genre. She may be well known in the US and among fans of country music, but absolutely anonymous outside of that. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on quality as well. Aside from issues already raised by others, the article is all over the place; lots of content which is all jumbled up in half-prose half-lists, horrible to navigate and horrible to read. Abcmaxx (talk) 22:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Discography is now cited. Thriley (talk) 16:19, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD now. I would ask for what value of X in "Xth best country singer alive" or "Xth best country singer of all time" a blurb is justified. Clearly we're already in a niche genre, so I'm going to say 1st & 5th respectively, and she is not there. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:14, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Subject to the article referencing being fixed up. Loretta Lynn's fame transcends country music - way more famous than the other people who have been mentioned here except Hank Williams (and would not be their opinion if you asked them). She is an important historical figure associated with the women's movement of the 1970s, through singing about topics previously considered taboo, such as birth control, domestic violence and double standards. Sissy Spacek won the Oscar for portraying her in the movie Coal Miner's Daughter. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:59, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Way more famous than the likes of Johnny Cash and Dolly Parton? I don't think that's likely. Humbledaisy (talk) 21:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Dolly Parton would not agree. Jack White from The White Stripes called her both a "mother figure" and "the greatest female singer-songwriter of the 20th century". "She was such an incredible presence and such a brilliant genius in ways that I think only people who got to work with her might know about. What she did for feminism, women's rights in a time period, in a genre of music that was the hardest to do it in, is just outstanding and will live on for a long time." [6] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:29, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Aye, in ways that I think only people who got to work with her might know about. I think a lot of us have lost a co-worker like that, maybe several, great people once you get to know them. As a mainstream music fan who also knows a thing or two about American pop culture until 2006, I'm almost certain Dolly Parton is the female country star. Then there's Shania, Reba and Faith. Loretta's not chopped liver, but neither are Leann, Tanya and Wynonna. Photo RD, when ready, if ever. No blurb for Jack White, either, whenever. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:27, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb – Adding a clearer !vote for the closing admin. I believe US country will be well-represented over time, and Loretta Lynn is just not quite up there. If this were a GA I might've swayed in favor, but all these one-sentence paragraphs just aren't great featuring material anyway. Article doesn't seem quite ready yet for RD either; I hope those citation-neededs will be fixed soon! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 08:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nobel Prize in Physics

Articles: Alain Aspect (talk · history · tag) and John Clauser (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Nobel Prize in Physics is awarded to Alain Aspect (pictured), John Clauser, and Anton Zeilinger for their work in quantum mechanics. (Post)
News source(s): NYTimes
Credits:

• Nominated by Masem (talk · give credit)

Article updated
One or both nominated events are listed on

WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Aspect's article is ready to go. Clauser and Zeilinger are about 75% there in terms of sourcing. Masem (t) 12:25, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

• Support - Looks good to me(also this is my first time voting, so please tell me if I'm doing anything wrong) PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• This comment is totally fine, PrecariousWorlds, and I'm sure everyone here will be happy to have another voice in the discussions here. The three articles indeed look quite decent so this will probably be ready to get featured on ITN in the near future. I'm personally going to wait with my !vote until John Clauser's article is expanded a bit more tho. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:17, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you! I hope I can be of help to this project. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 13:18, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support... although Alain Aspect's article has a missing reference ([10]); there needs to be more references of Clauser's article (there's only two, and his entire biographical section only relies on a single source, not enough); at a glance, there are no issues for Zellinger's article. Been some time I made a nomination, hope my viewpoints arent rusty. Cheers, gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 13:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  In Zeilinger's article, the awards section is largely unreferenced, this needs fixing before we can post. Tone 14:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Your right. Over 20 awards, and none of them cited. Cheers, gavre (al. PenangLion) (talk) 15:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hello, Are you sure we need to fix this before posting? The news might get stale in the meantime. It happened last year ! Why not just remove the unsourced information and post the news? Varoon2542 (talk) 16:41, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not Ready for the
  usual reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. Can someone with the ability try to create a composite image that combines the three awardees into a single picture? Is combining three images a tad difficult? Tagging Masem who iirc has created composite images in the past. Ktin (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. MSN12102001 (talk) 14:24, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Nobel prize is a major event and comes in ITN. Alex-h (talk) 15:02, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  that has never been questioned. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not ready I've orange-tagged the articles because they still don't meet the quality requirements as the CN tags they've have not been fixed. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now: Alain Aspect has a few inline cn tags that should be easily fixable, but also the entire Awards section is completely unsourced. A big paragraph in John Clauser is also unsourced. Anton Zeilinger is almost catastrophically unsourced: there are around a dozen-and-a-half cn tags, and a huge portion of the Awards section is unsourced.
• Not ready I've boldly commented out uncited sections and two of the bios are ready, but Anton Zeilinger is a show-stopper. Schwede66 00:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry but this is getting a bit urgent. Last year, one nobel prize win in science was not posted for similar reasons. Quite shameful. Can't the uncited sections be removed and the blurb published? Regards Varoon2542 (talk) 10:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Varoon2542 There are 28 citation needed tags and not everything that is uncited is tagged. So no, this isn't remotely ready and if you removed everything that's uncited, there would not be much left. Major exercise required to fix this. You are welcome to have a go at this, though. Schwede66 06:17, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I do get your point. I can't have a go at it, I'm not that good. Well, we are moving forward to another year when a Nobel Prize in Science won't be featured on the main page. By the time the article is up to standards, the news will be stale. I remember a time when many complained that there weren't enough editors for sociology articles on wikipedia. Apparently, we don't have enough persons for science articles now. So much so for an universal encyclopaedia. Varoon2542 (talk) 15:07, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose All currently fail
  WP:ITNCRIT with only one-line updates to the pages:

  The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable.

  —Bagumba (talk) 13:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Again, what else can you say about winning the Nobel beyond a sentence or two? Common sense has to apply here. Masem (t) 15:12, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  2/3 articles are fine. Zeilinger's is still heavily tagged with cn on sections other than Nobel Prize. Tone 15:15, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Kim Jung Gi

• Oppose Article has multiple citation needed tags. The "Bibliography" section is entirely unsourced. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 01:21, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Tiffany Jackson

• Support – article is well-referenced and meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 05:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support meets RD breadth and sourcing requiements.—Bagumba (talk) 11:23, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support solid C class bio. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - RD ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 03:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: William K. Brewster

• Support Another short but well-referenced article. Of course, good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ron Franz

• Support Article is short but well-referenced. Looks good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support G2G. marking as ready. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:36, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eamonn McCabe

Not just sports; he has several works in the Nattional Portrait Gallery and other collections, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – article is well-referenced and now meets minimum depth of coverage for ITN. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Article is good and has enough information. Alex-h (talk) 16:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:51, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Jerzy Urban

• Comment Urban served as official spokesman of the Polish Communist regime in 1981-89. Infamous for press conference after the introduction of martial law on Dec. 13, 1981, during which 100 dissidents were killed. -- Bruzaholm (talk) 14:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment a key figure in Poland. I have expanded the article a bit, ultimately it doesn't really reflect just how much he was generally loathed in Poland, even among those who secretly enjoy the satire of
  Nie. More references needed regarding his early life. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

probably not blurb-worthy on en-wiki, but a photo may be appropriate? Abcmaxx (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IAR aside, I thought we had a policy that photos are for blurbs only. The most recent discussion I could find- [9] GreatCaesarsGhost 21:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – RD only. Generally unknown outside PL. – Sca (talk) 14:50, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  agree. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD no blurb - former spokesperson of Polish Communist Regime CR-1-AB (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now Way too many unsourced paragraphs, including the entire "Court case for offence to John-Paul II" section. Curbon7 (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Bosnian general election

Article: 2022 Bosnian general election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ SNSD win a plurality of votes in the Bosnian general election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Bosnian general election, Denis Bećirović, Željko Komšić and Željka Cvijanović (pictured) are elected to the Presidency.
Credits:

• Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
• Created by Kirbapara (talk · give credit)

The nominated event is listed on

WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Article needs a lot more prose. Very complicated electoral system with 3x president's elected too Abcmaxx (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

• Comment – Bosnia is fairly sui generis as a political system but the elections of the three Members of the Presidency are politically more significant than the election of the House of Representatives. "Winning a plurality of votes" is fairly insignificant as Bosnia and Herzegovina is like Belgium or Lebanon, where the parties are not directly competing with each other. JackWilfred (talk) 10:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment agree with JackWilfred. Maybe a better blurb would highlight the 3 people that were elected to the Presidency? AltBlurb proposed. Khuft (talk) 11:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Much better. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:42, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As usual, the "Preliminary results" section needs prose and a section on Reactions/Aftermath needs to be added. _-_Alsor (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think there shouldn't be a picture, due to the obvious ethnic implications (we don't want to be seen as preferring one ethnic group). Curbon7 (talk) 18:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point. Although the image can be rotated or someone can make a collage with three (which I don’t know how to do and I preferred to put the pic of the only woman). In any case, we are in days of Nobel prizes, so it would hardly stand out many days a photo of the new members of the presidency in the event that this nomination succeeds. _-_Alsor (talk) 18:39, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, as much as I love the idea of a rotating one, I think it's just easier not to include a picture. JackWilfred (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support AltBlurb and Oppose picture, as per above. JamesLewisBedford01 (talk) 08:52, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support AltBlurb, I think the article is looking good. The BLPs look alright, but I would recommend fixing up the citations of Željka Cvijanović if possible. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:40, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no prose on the actual result, it's all background, electoral system and results tables currently. Stephen 22:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Bulgarian snap parliamentary election

Article: 2022 Bulgarian parliamentary election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ GERB-SDS alliance (leader Boyko Borisov pictured) wins a plurality of votes in the snap Bulgarian parliamentary election. (Post)
News source(s): DW
Credits:

• Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
• Created by BastianMAT (talk · give credit)

The nominated event is listed on

WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: Yet another election in Bulgaria. Article needs a lot more prose. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

• Oppose on quality For the usual reasons: there's no prose about the results, there's no section on reactions or aftermath and it would be nice if there was more prose in the other sections where there are only tables. _-_Alsor (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Still seriously lacking prose, and one of the three short paragraphs is even uncited. Nowhere near the required levels for ITN. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 07:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine

Articles: 2022 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (talk · history · tag) and Svante Pääbo (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Svante Pääbo is awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on extinct hominin genomes and human evolution. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Svante Pääbo is awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his work on human evolutionary genetics.
News source(s): Reuters, CBS News, BBC
Credits:

• Nominated by Davey2116 (talk · give credit)
• Created by JB Hoang Tam (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating
One or both nominated events are listed on

WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

 Davey2116 (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

• I guess 2022 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine is not bad as a list article, but it's a bit stubby for my liking. Pääbo's article looks good, though, so I will probably support this soon if the former is expanded a bit more :) ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 11:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The "Laureate" section of the Nobel article needs sources and a "Reactions" section should be added. In Pääbo article, there are tags to be fixed and sources to be added in some paragraphs. But in general both bolded articles are fine and will be ready soon. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would remove the entire "unofficial possible nominees" section because this is just speculations - or at least condense it to a single-paragraph prose instead of a table with flags and all that. The laureate himself should be the sole bolded article, and it is good to go as soon as the cn tags get fixed. Tone 14:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. As every year, this is brand news and deserves ITN. And tomorrow (and from then on) there's more. MSN12102001 (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am concerned on the specific year article here. I don't recall us doing that with the Nobels before (the overall listing of each award, yes), and the fact that the shortlist of candidates for the award are not made public makes that current list there highly suspect and OR (even though those are all pointing to secondary articles saying "These people should get awards". If you take that list out, that only leaves the winner, which is what the other bold link covers. --Masem (t) 01:11, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, lists of people who have been called X (candidates in this case) typically become unwieldy directories with no selection criteria of who is

  WP:DUE to be included. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ice hockey players considered the greatest of all time.—Bagumba (talk) 13:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Comment Last year (and past?), we just linked to the general Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine page.[10].—Bagumba (talk) 13:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Can I post this now? I would just like to see some explicit support. Not planning to link the 2022 article, just the laureate. Tone 13:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If Pääbo is the article under discussion then I support featuring it. It looks good. The normal Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine article looks good too. 2022 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine might deserve an AfD discussion? Regardles, it is of insufficient quality for ITN. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 14:24, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 14:43, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A few unsourced sentences and a couple of ^{[citation needed]} tags. Please see if anyone can fill those, now that the article is on the mainpage. Ktin (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull Only paltry one-sentence update about the Nobel prize at the bolded
  WP:ITNCRIT (emphasis added):

  The decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable.

  —Bagumba (talk) 08:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

(Posted) RD: Douglas Kirkland

• Posted Stephen 22:47, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Shirley Englehorn

• Support - looks good. DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 15:06, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks ready. Skynxnex (talk) 17:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 19:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Laurence Silberman

• Support There's a CN tag in the "Academic career". But the article is in great shape. _-_Alsor (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've added a CN tag because I wasn't able to find a source to support the claim that he had written
  In re: Sealed Case No. 02-001. Other than that, the article looks great.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support, Article is fine. Alex-h (talk) 16:21, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I resolved the CN tag, and everything else seems to be in order. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Sacheen Littlefeather

• Support Her article is ready to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:55, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Excellently written article about an outstanding individual, it's ready to go! Ornithoptera (talk) 07:54, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Quite widely covered. – Sca (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Her death has been widely covered in
  WP:RS and the article is in a good state. TartarTorte 14:08, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Posted already by another admin. --PFHLai (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Darshan Dharmaraj

• Article is a stub, mostly just a filmography list. Not sure this meets on quality. - Indefensible (talk) 04:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It's still early. This wikibio still has quite a few days of eligibility remaining. Let's assume User:Titanciwiki and others will beef it up in the next few days. -- PFHLai (talk) 09:17, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Ongoing: Mahsa Amini protests

Nominator's comments: Event continues to evolve and receive coverage since posting on September 22. - Indefensible (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose because the blurb fell off ITN 3 days ago, and we didn't post it to Ongoing when that happened. FAdesdae378 (talk · contribs) 23:45, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Items don’t get automatically posted to ongoing when they drop off. They need a separate nomination, which is exactly what this is. Stephen 00:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per nom. - LouisAragon (talk) 01:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Article is being actively maintained and the ongoing protests are clearly still of an appropriate level of significantness. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 06:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support definitely ongoing and constantly in the news Abcmaxx (talk) 07:11, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The protests are still ongoing & still in the news. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 08:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Protests are still ongoing indeed. --HistoryofIran (talk) 08:59, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted as ongoing – Muboshgu (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Significant. [12] – Sca (talk) 12:33, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Further coverage: [13] [14] [15] [16][17] -- Sca (talk) 12:39, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2022 London Marathon

Article: 2022 London Marathon (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Yalemzerf Yehualaw of Ethiopia becomes the youngest woman to win the London Marathon whilst Amos Kipruto (pictured) of Kenya wins the men's race. (Post)
News source(s): The Guardian
Credits:

• Nominated by Abcmaxx (talk · give credit)
• Created by Joseph2302 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Alibene567 (talk · give credit) and Joseph2302 (talk · give credit)

Article updated
The nominated event is listed on

WP:ITNCRIT, not the significance.

Nominator's comments: I added this to current news portal. We posted the Berlin marathon not long ago, I believe this is just as notable. Abcmaxx (talk) 18:42, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

• Comment This is on
  WP:ITNR, so no comparisons to Berlin needed (which incidentally was only posted indirectly because of the world record).—Bagumba (talk) 19:07, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose for now pending sourced prose on the actual race and results.—Bagumba (talk) 19:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: i have added to the nomination the article creator and the editor who posted the results. Abcmaxx, if an editor eventually updates the article with a race summary, could you add that updater to the nomination and mark the nomination as updated? thanks in advance. dying (talk) 00:43, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

the race summary section hasn't been updated, though; in fact, that section is still using future tense. for comparison, this is how the summary for last year's race looked like when the associated blurb was posted to itn. dying (talk) 22:12, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the tense issues and updated who of the expected competitors actually ran but a prose summary is still required. Thryduulf (talk) 08:32, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted, prose summary was added. Stephen 01:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Alpinista wins the Prix de l'Arc de Triomphe