Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/February 2023

• Support Looks good enough for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I agree this is good enough for RD, although I'd like some indication of the significance of the award given it's a red link. Thryduulf (talk) 13:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Article looks good. Alex-h (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) Erythritol use linked to blood clotting, stroke, heart attack and death

(Posted) RD: Maon Kurosaki

• Support Looks good, it's up to date, and it's a GA. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - updated and ready.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks fleshed out and well sourced to me. Gotitbro (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Albie Pearson

• Support I don't see any problems with the article. It's up to date, it has everything referenced, and it's a GA. Enough for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 09:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Li Yining

• Support I'm liking that he "took a harsh view of what he called "hard nuts" that impeded China's reform: vested interests and systemic inertia." But defeating these isn't easy. How on earth did he manage to implement fully-fledged capitalism when China is still nominally a communist, Marxist state? "Chinese characteristics" seems to hide much fudging... Andrew🐉(talk) 18:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks good to go. The Kip (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is nitpicky, but there should be more refs for "Major publications", however this article is all good to go. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Article looks ok. Alex-h (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go. sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) EU / UK trade deal for NI

Consensus to post will not develop at this time. I suggest considering renominating the item if and when this agreement is ratified. Sandstein 19:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Articles: Windsor Framework (talk · history · tag) and Northern Ireland Protocol (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A new framework is agreed for the Northern Ireland Protocol between the EU and UK. (Post)
News source(s): NYT; BBC; Euronews
Credits:

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Created by Curb Safe Charmer (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Lots of meetings and announcements by Rishi Sunak, King Charles, Ursula von der Leyen and so on. The details and articles may need more work but it seems that it's a done deal. As the location and title of the relevant articles is not obvious, ITN can assist navigation. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Article is currently a stub, may have copyright violation per current banner. - Indefensible (talk) 17:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The new article was started by an IP editor and Curb Safe Charmer has kindly been doing some work to clean-up and develop it. Perhaps there are more articles out there about this so it seemed sensible to start some discussion while the matter is in the headlines. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We probably should wait until the deal is ratified and going into effect, this nomination is premature in my opinion. - Indefensible (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - In The News, with plenty of coverage. Major deal on the future of two great powers. Unique story as well, to diversify our range. Looks good. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not willing to throw my support behind this until the article can be expanded into something more than a stub.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 18:29, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article does not pass muster, perhaps a hook to Brexit or similar might be better. Gotitbro (talk) 21:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality. I'm undecided on the significance, leaning towards yes but a better article and time for reliable source to examine the details should make it clearer either way. Thryduulf (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait this establishes terms of the deal but it appears as I read it, it still needs the individual govt bodies to approve it. Wait until that clears. --Masem (t) 22:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose on all counts. Like the Croatia joins the euro story, this is, and has always been, a predictable outcome. Beyond that, the UK is certainly not a "great power", and it hasnt been during the entire lifespan of most of the editors and readers of the English Wikipedia. nableezy - 22:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An expected outcome does not make a news item insignificant. Neither should an analysis of power politics take away from the fact that this is clearly an important development in the Brexit story. Gotitbro (talk) 06:41, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We blurbed Brexit, that was the story. Probably blurbed multiple times at that. nableezy - 17:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  From the United Kingdom article:

  "In the 21st century, the UK remains a great power and has significant economic, cultural, military, scientific, technological and political influence internationally." PrecariousWorlds (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah thanks for proving Wikipedia is not a reliable source. This seems apt. nableezy - 16:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We posted

  Croatia and the Euro. We even posted an election in Monaco and states don't get much smaller than that. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Croatia and the Euro shouldnt have been posted, that was silly. All new EU members are required to join the Euro, it was the opposite of news when what was expected to happen happened. Same here. nableezy - 16:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's funny how we almost instantly post any change of head of state, or tiny sports events, or any of the such, but when it comes to a major agreement like this which is quite literally In The News, everyone opposes PrecariousWorlds (talk) 09:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No tiny sports events are posted, huge ones are snubbed, and any head of state change is ITN/R. nableezy - 16:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Changes in heads of state and sports competitions only get posted when there is consensus that the timing is right (new person takes office, conclusion of the competition) and the article is of sufficient quality. In this case there is a clear consensus the article quality is not yet good enough and no consensus that this is the the right point in the process to post the story (given we don't post the same story twice - we are not a news ticker). Even if there was consensus that this was the best time to post, article quality is the most important consideration. Thryduulf (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough. If I'm perfectly honest I was being rather hyperbolic. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 14:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait. Can't say I'm an expert on the economic machinations of Europe as a whole, but sorta playing off of Nableezy's comment here I'm not sure what exactly is the takeway here that is all that remarkable. The article doesn't really establish anything of the sort as of right now and is a little too heavy on "reactions", which are worth noting but it's not a good sign if a large chunk of the article is such. DarkSide830 (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle. Northern Ireland, albeit part of the UK and thus no longer a member of the EU Customs Union, still enforces the EU Customs Code, so an agreement pertaining to the application of foreign legislation on part of a county's territory is very significant.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 23:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at the moment for want of more obvious immediate significance. The deal has been proposed, but the DUP has yet to decide whether to support it. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 00:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose solely due to the fact that it ain't in stone yet. Crusader1096 (message) 01:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait I would support this, but the new framework needs to be ratified first. MarioJump83 (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - this deal has been several years in the making, and resolves major international tensions. It would be newsworthy whether or not it was ratified by the respective parliaments. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 09:43, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Our article merely says that the agreement is "proposed," and though it lists that all parties seem to be feeling good about it, our article doesn't have clear language at all about whether relevant politicians have signed off on it or whether it will be ratified. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 10:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on significance, Oppose on quality and timing. Let's take the time prior to passage to flesh out the contents of the agreement. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:26, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support on Merit, Oppose on quality an event like this would be important, because this is a deal that resolved many tension between the U.K and the E.U, but the quality of the article is poor, and this is not yet official yet, so also Wait. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait News coverage is showing that this is a significant enough story to expect it on ITN, but I agree that the ratification of the agreement is the best time to post. It will also give the article more time to develop. --Jayron32 13:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Significant for Brexit, the kinks of the agreement finally being worked out, but probably should be ratified before going on ITN, as said by many before. TheBlueSkyClub (talk) 16:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle. This is essentially undoing the effects of Brexit on trade with Northern Ireland. There's plenty of media coverage, in multiple nations. The article is quite bare bones - it meets our minimum requirements but I would like to see more on the background and content of the agreement. It also doesn't mention the other issues that have been held up by this, such as membership of Horizon Europe. I'm happy with either posting now or waiting until it has been approved by parliament - it's seems highly unlikely to be rejected, given that both Tory and Labour parties will be whipping to support it (Stormont has suspended itself, so doesn't get a say). But perhaps that time could be spent on improving the article. Modest Genius ^talk 17:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Closed) Re-Add the Mahsa Amini protests to the ongoing section

(Posted) RD: Betty Boothroyd

Article: Betty Boothroyd (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): BBC Sky News
Credits:

• Nominated by The C of E (talk · give credit)
• Updated by David Crayford (talk · give credit) and Strattonsmith (talk · give credit)

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: First female Speaker of the House of Commons.  The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

Support seems like a proper RD candidate, basically, per below. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support Can't see any super obvious reason to say something against it. Seems like a some easy RD candidate, hopefully. TheCorriynial (talk) 13:03, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. But also note that "Honorary Degrees" section may require some refs/expansion before posting this to RD. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed the tag after adding a source with her official bio that refers simply to "at least eight honorary degrees" (rather than listing them out). Think that's enough. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think that, being such an important figure and treated as "legendary" even by journalists outside the UK, it would be interesting if it can be explained something more about her career both as an MP and as a Speaker. _-_Alsor (talk) 13:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Picture Seems pleasantly free of the axe-grinding which spoils Bernard Ingham, as noted below. And, as there's a good official portrait, we should please use it. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with using the picture @Andrew Davidson:. I was going to suggest a full blurb but wasn't sure what impact she had on the rest of the world so went for the safe RD. But the picture would be fantastic if we can use it. The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 13:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Andrew, stop adding pictures in every RD nomination. She is still a very local political woman in which the international impact is insufficient (natural of the position of any Speaker of any country). You have to make a comparison exercise with the blurbs that have been posted. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There's been a trend recently of snubbing successful women by not running their pictures -- Jacinda Ardern, Nicola Sturgeon, Raquel Welch. That's not a good look when the pictures that we are running are so stale. The current ITN picture (right) has been up for days now and its topic is no longer the top blurb. It's time for a change. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Your insinuations that other people are misogynistic because they don't follow your orders are inappropriate, and your daily and continuous drumbeat of casting aspersions against all people who do not think identically to you is growing wearisome to the point of being disruptive to the proper running of this board. This kind of poisoning the well needs to stop. Not everyone who disagrees with you is doing so because they are bigots, as you seem to be implying here. --Jayron32 14:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, oppose Blurb. Per Alsor. As for Andrew's comment on 'snubbing successful women', in case of Jacinda and Nicola, both were resigning. As far as I can remember, we didn't run a blurb when BoJo stepped down, but we did run one when Truss took office. A PM (or lower post in Sturgeon's case) resigning is news, but not ITN worthy, successor taking office is (for PM, not a lower post). --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD. Oppose picture and blurb. Article quality is good enough for RD but she wasn't transformative enough for a blurb. For reasons repeatedly explained to Andrew, photo RDs are not and should not be a thing (and gender is irrelevant to all of this). Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 15:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Definitely up there, pioneering woman in the political field of the UK. (I'll never forget the time she kicked William Ulsterman out of the Commons for his getting haughty over cheddar cheese and pineapple on a stick being unavailable.)--SinoDevonian (talk) 15:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Not opposed to images for RD entirely, but I think the precedent has moved away from that (can someone please remind me the last time it happened). I would not have been opposed to a blurb either, but we haven't blurbed speakers and moving away from that opens a new floodgate that should be best avoided. Gotitbro (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Gotitbro A photo RD has happened a couple of times, but always boldly and usually (if not always) removed fairly quickly. Discussions on the talk page about photos with RD have never reached a favourable consensus. Thryduulf (talk) 19:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted RD. -- KTC (talk) 15:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) New intelligence on COVID-19 cause

Clear consensus not to post. --Tone 15:34, 27 February 2023 (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.

---

The Wuhan Institute of Virology near the site of the first outbreak

Article: COVID-19 lab leak theory (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The United States Department of Energy uses new intelligence to conclude that the COVID-19 pandemic was likely caused by a laboratory leak. (Post)
News source(s): NYT; Al Jazeera; South China Morning Post; Guardian.
Credits:

• Nominated by Andrew Davidson (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Robert.Allen (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: This topic has always been a peculiar mix of blame game, politics and science but it's interesting that the story is still making headlines and that different US agencies have their own separate official positions. The late Paul Berg warned of the importance of such science so it's disturbing that it's taking so long to settle it. -Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Reluctant oppose. Several issues with this: 1) as per sources, the report was made with "low confidence 2) per Guardian, the "updated findings run counter to reports by four other US intelligence agencies that concluded the epidemic started as the result of natural transmission from an infected animal" and "there are a “variety of views” within US intelligence agencies on the issue". 3) it's unclear why Department of Energy handles this rather than, for example, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention or other relevant body. Brandmeister^talk 09:52, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose it's mostly
  Parkinson's Law but the DoE includes the Office of Science which does it all including an extensive program of Biological and Environmental Research. It's a bit more puzzling that other agencies, such as the FBI, have a position on this too. But as the pandemic has caused many millions of deaths and is still counting, it's not surprising that it's still getting lots of attention from lots of people, including the news media. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:37, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oppose I don't see how this is news worthy. It won't result in any policy change and its not the official position of the US government. I know this story is technically "in the news" but that has never been the criteria here. Aure entuluva (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Ascertaining the exact cause of the COVID-19 pandemic is a matter of science, not intelligence, so let's wait until a paper with more details on the transmission gets published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. At this point, the intelligence report merely points out to something that was possible from the beginning with no further details.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:21, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Others have made good points, but this is a major development in a gigantic story. If it turns out that COVID-19, a virus that has killed millions, destabilised the fabric of 21st century society, and caused one of the largest economic crises in recent memory, was produced in a lab, that is HUGE news. I know it hasn't been confirmed, but major components of the United States government accusing a foreign adversary of creating this virus is definitely notable, especially with high tensions over Taiwan and the balloons. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of a "lab leak" and "created in a lab/created by the PRC" are entirely different things, even if this report was 100% accurate and trustworthy, it is most definitely not saying that COVID was "produced in a lab". Courcelles (talk) 15:33, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Something with "low confidence" (quote from the article) and which "White House National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan responded to the report saying there was still "no definitive answer" to the pandemic origins' question." seems like the blurb makes this out to be more significant than the actual information seems to do. --Jayron32 11:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Opposite Jesus Christ, no way. Let's not feed conspiracy theories with documents that are very no definitive. _-_Alsor (talk) 12:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose "low confidence"... this doesn't seem definitive at all. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest possible oppose I warned the lab leak talk page about this report, which only is saying that the DOE believes the COVID to be from the lab, but this does not represent the full US Gov't stance on it. As such, it should not be considered anywhere close to news. --Masem (t) 13:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That's my feeling. MarioJump83 (talk) 13:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Oppose There is no way this is serious, This is Wikipedia, not Conspiracy-pedia, and they aren't even sure of it! they even admitted it theselves - Low Confidence! This is also not ITN-Worthy because it has not been confirmed. Editor 5426387 (talk) 13:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. This remains an ongoing debate among academics and intelligence agencies. There's no reason to highlight the DoE's report any more than the one from the CIA, WHO or any of the other dozen or so bodies who have reached a variety of conclusions. Modest Genius ^talk 14:23, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose why, just why. The Department of Energy isn't even 100% sure, and it could be false. TomMasterReal^TALK 14:58, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The purpose of ITN is to direct readers to quality content, not government propaganda (not even government propaganda, just outright bullshit from a single government agency) spoken in Wiki-voice.--⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 15:16, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Voicing this as such on ITN might tend us towards undue
  WP:FRINGE. If there emerges subsequent scientific consensus on the theory that would be the time to post this. Gotitbro (talk) 15:28, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose If we ever got a scientific consensus on the origin of the pandemic? That would, IMO, be worthy of posting. Low confidence determinations that differ from other low confidence determinations? Not so much. Courcelles (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2023 (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.

(Posted) RD: Chester Borrows

• Support Everything is cited, looks good for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. No issues. Looks ready to be posted. Vida0007 (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Günther von Lojewski

• Support. Updated article seems in good shape to post, per
  WP:ITNQUALITY. Chocmilk03 (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support Relatively short but meets minimum standards. Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 05:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Gleb Pavlovsky

• Oppose. The "Media" section is entirely unsourced and there is also a CN tag in the prose. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Italy migrant boat disaster

  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Still working on the article, although I think it's in good shape to post now. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 13:38, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Dumb question: does the article need the year on it? There's only been one migrant boat disaster this year... (this is not in opposition to a support, just a question). --Masem (t) 16:02, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It conveys information on when the incident happened, so there's no harm in keeping it IMO. The ⬡ Bestagon ^T/_C 16:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, per

  WP:NCE the standard naming format includes the year.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support Article seems to be in good shape, well sourced. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 16:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Tragedy, but death toll does not automatically warrant notability. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 16:59, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. Article is somewhat short but otherwise good. DarkSide830 (talk) 18:26, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another sad highlight of the migration crisis, death toll is over 50 now, recommend updating the blurb as well. Gotitbro (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above Editor 5426387 (talk) 01:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Definitely. MarioJump83 (talk) 09:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Death toll now almost 60, and while migrant deaths is a recurring phenomenon in this part of the world, the scale of this particular event is ITN worthy. Vida0007 (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 09:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Victor Babiuc

• Weak support. The Legal career and entry into politics section reads like a poorly-formatted CV, but it is all cited. Thryduulf (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The lead lists an exact death date, but the body doesn't. This needs to be consistent.—Bagumba (talk) 06:58, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: François Engongah Owono

• Support, good enough for RD. Thryduulf (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, Article is ok. Alex-h (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 73rd Berlin International Film Festival

• Support: I am creator of the nominated article. The article is comprehensive and written as per
  WP:MOS. It is fully referenced and wikilinked, wherever available. Rickyurs (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment: Festival article has been updated and content added. Rickyurs (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose There is nearly no prose about the festival outside the lede. --Masem (t) 13:19, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The article on the film itself looks acceptable, but looking through the archives I see [5] the festival itself is historically a target article, so I agree, that article needs work before this can be posted. Courcelles (talk) 14:42, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Rickyurs: Can you please update the festival article? BorgQueen (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Masem how is it now? BorgQueen (talk) 13:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I am only curious if there was any reaction to the awards or festival itself, but the added prose seems to support posting now. --Masem (t) 14:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality Festival article is almost entirely lists and tables. The Kip (talk) 19:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Kip It has been updated since. How is it now? BorgQueen (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As far I'm aware we only assess the bolded article for quality, so I'm not sure why the festival article being "lists and tables" should hold up posting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Because normally for awards and festivals, the target article should be the ceremony if the award or festival. If the winning work or actor hthat we normally name us of good quality, we can bold that too, but the award or festival is still key. Masem (t) 19:53, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments The festival article has been updated with some more prose. BorgQueen (talk) 05:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Both the bolded articles are now of sufficient quality to post. Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:58, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on the article about the film, Weak support on the article about the festival; it's still very table heavy, but there's probably enough prose there to be worth highlighting. --Jayron32 15:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It seems we generally bold the award ceremony page and not the winner. See 2022 Oscars or 2015 Berlin Fest. Added altblurb—Bagumba (talk) 05:20, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• I withdraw the nomination.BorgQueen (talk) 06:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As there were previous supports, I re-opened the nomination.—Bagumba (talk) 09:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's kind of you, but I got the impression that most were simply not interested in this nom. Hope I'm wrong about that. BorgQueen (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Since it's presumably notable as an ITNR item, it's probably ready to post soon if nobody rebuts that quality has now been met.—Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good to me, now. Courcelles (talk) 13:55, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support altblurb. The festival is ITNR, not the film, so should be the bold link. The festival article is well referenced and comprehensive, but mostly tables. It does meet out minimum requirements though, good enough to post. Modest Genius ^talk 15:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 19:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gordon Pinsent

• Comment I do agree that the article needs ref improvements due to the numerous citation needed tags. I might as well improve it! Tails Wx 13:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support, all {{

  YouTube ones. Tails Wx 14:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  IMDb and Discogs are listed as unreliable sources on

  WP:RSP as the content on those websites is user-generated. Vacant0 (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Not ready, needs ref improvement as IMDb is not considered reliable per above. - Indefensible (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Vacant0, Indefensible, I have removed the IMDb and Discogs sources as they are unreliable. Sourcing issues should be fixed! Tails Wx 22:59, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Did a spot check, need additional refs to cover some of the titles, especially in the TV section. - Indefensible (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @

  cn}} tags resolved! Tails Wx 04:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  It's getting there, but many of the TV listings still need refs too, I just didn't add cn tags for all of them. - Indefensible (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. I'll let you know when I've sourced all TV listings. Thanks! Tails Wx 04:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Indefensible, all sourcing issues have been fixed! However, I don't know if the references are reliable. Feel free to let me know if any other improvements are entailed! Tails Wx 17:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - ref issues have been addressed. - Indefensible (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Mihai Șora

• Support It's a stub article but looks good enough for RD. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually stub articles are never suitable for RD :) But in this case, it's been assessed as Start class which I think is accurate, so I've removed the stub tag. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose One-sentence lead is too short.—Bagumba (talk) 06:54, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ali Yafie

• Needs ref improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 06:23, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Edith Roger

• Support Appears to be sufficiently holistic for our purposes. Article is also well-cited. Curbon7 (talk) 00:39, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Víctor Gómez Bergés

• Not yet ready Quite short; this reads more like a resume listing offices he's held than an encyclopedia article. Just a few sentences explaining things he may have done in these offices (particularly in parliament and as minister of FA) would be sufficient to making this holistic. The article is also pretty underlinked. Curbon7 (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Walter Mirisch

• Needs ref improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 06:22, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Several large unsourced portions. Curbon7 (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Felipe González González

• Weak Support Article sourcing looks complete. Some more details could be added about his term as governor. Joofjoof (talk) 22:53, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per user above. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 09:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: James Abourezk

• Needs ref improvement currently. - Indefensible (talk) 06:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated. Better late than never! Fully sourced now and makes a lot more sense. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Looks way better! Curbon7 (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good to go. _-_Alsor (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thryduulf (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Bernard Ingham

• Needs work Lots of work. I just read the article, comparing it with the BBC and Guardian obituaries. It seems too
  recentist, giving undue weight to matters like the petty dispute with the neighbour and the Hillsborough matter while giving no attention to more significant issues in his career like the Falklands War. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Support Everything seems to be cited. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is in good shape. Mooonswimmer 18:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A little short, but sufficiently holistic for our purposes and well-cited. Curbon7 (talk) 00:31, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(posted) RD: John Olver

• The 2004 Electoral College section saying he voted "not to count" Ohio needs work, especially the
  WP:SYNTH following that sentence. Unlike January 6, 2021, this was not an attempt to overturn an election. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Indeed a GA, but from a decade ago. I've added cn tags. --Vacant0 (talk) 15:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'll take a crack at fixing some of the issues later. Olver is one of the more famous people to come from my town. Curbon7 (talk) 00:29, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support I've gone ahead and cut/commented out the unsourced portions. I also commented out the entire bit about the Ohio electoral count, as I'm not sure it's

  WP:DUE. I think the rest of the content is fine for holisticity and sourcing. Curbon7 (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Posted --Jayron32 13:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Like the editor who saw Rebecca Blank and thought Rebecca Black died, thought this said John Oliver for a split second 😭 -Gouleg🛋️ ^harass/_hound (she/her) 13:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) 2023 Wamena riot

(Posted) RD: Thomas H. Lee (businessman)

• Support Article appears to be very well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 05:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The article says "Lee was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound" but the corresponding citation says "The police spokesman did not confirm the man had died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, noting the cause of death would be for a medical examiner to determine." It's not enough to have citations. You have to accurately follow them. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame we don't all work on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, or else maybe we'd be able to fix this problem. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I hadn't seen that. Curbon7 (talk) 13:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited this, all the source is able to fully justify is that he was found dead, not the cause. Courcelles (talk) 16:37, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it does not say this any more. It did not when I nominated it, and we can semi-protect the article if unconfirmed BLP details are repeatedly reinserted. Please reexamine your vote Andrew Davidson. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The news sources do not seem to have much detail about this death. As it is somewhat suspicious and controversial, we should wait upon further investigation. There's no rush as we are not a newspaper. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:42, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

... which is why the article shouldn't state a cause of death at this point. But that does not mean the article shouldn't be posted. I don't understand that logic. Nor do I understand why you didn't remove it yourself when you saw it, instead leaving it in the article to comment on it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, didn't you complain that we didn't move fast enough to post something? Why the change in tack now? It reads as though you are complaining for the sake of complaining. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 19:21, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Lee's death ruled a suicide by gunshot. (Not that we needed them to for ITN/RD.) So now that there's no reason to oppose this, Andrew Davidson, I presume you can strike your "oppose", even if you don't want to answer the question about why you saw a potential BLP violation and did not remove it yourself. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:28, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's pretty well cited per Curbon7. We don't know the full details of his death, but that doesn't mean he shouldn't be included in the RD. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 07:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Donald Dillbeck

• Text RD A name like this draws its own attention. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:12, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The prose is very casual (ex. "Dillbeck's father walked out on him", "shooting a deputy dead", "Dillbeck's court-appointed lawyer conceded his crimes and tried to save him from the electric chair", etc.) in spots. There are also
  WP:PROSELINE issues. Curbon7 (talk) 05:32, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  That's plain English and it works best. In this context, anyway. A treatise on parental responsibility, police report or high-priced New York piece might rightly go with "abandoned", "fatally wounding a law enforcement officer with a firearm" or "Old Sparky", but that's never been Wikipedia's style. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Seems to violate
  WP:PERP. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Not sure where you get that. "if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person". There isn't. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 10:01, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Read on. "Where there are no appropriate existing articles, the criminal or victim in question should be the subject of a Wikipedia article only if one of the following applies:..." Andrew🐉(talk) 12:40, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it has a Wikipedia article, so it's inherently notable and appropriate for RD. I'd argue that any person on death row is automatically notable. --Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 02:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• There are about 28,000 people on death row globally so you have your work cut out for you. Even if you just focus on actual executions and just stick to the USA, the rate seems to be about one a week. See List of people executed in the United States in 2023. I'm still not seeing what's special about this case. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I took another look and realised that this guy was just executed for a murder in 1990 and so he's been on death row for 32 years! The article doesn't explain this remarkable delay though. See the Mills of God... Andrew🐉(talk) 08:58, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The article doesn't explain it because it's not an unusual delay. In Japan and the United States (the two developed liberal democracies that retain the death penalty), there's usually a significant delay between the crime and punishment, since even people sentenced to die are given strong due process rights. -- Rockstone^{Send me a message!} 22:22, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't feel any issues with the article. MarioJump83 (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For the name alone. Inexpiable (talk) 21:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral If Andrew wants o test WP:PERP, he should try
  WP:AFD. However, his concern is valid. 63.44.29.199 (talk) 17:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose The article jumps 32 years from his conviction in 1991 to his execution without any mention of appeals. There's some details here if someone has the time to add them. Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:42, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Motson

• Support passable for RD. I added a source, put some continuous tenses in the past tense and removed unsourced from the lead. Unknown Temptation (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I've done a quick copyedit of the article, which seems in good enough shape for RD. Modest Genius ^talk 12:25, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I've done a quick copyedit of the article, which seems in good enough shape for RD.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Jinx! Modest Genius ^talk 13:46, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I've removed a duplicated paragraph and didn't spot any other issues. Marked as Ready. Awkward42 (talk) [the alternate account of Thryduulf (talk)] 14:55, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support - article looks good Crusader1096 (message) 15:34, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Posted -- KTC (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Doug Fisher (American football)

• Support Looks good, everything is cited. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Could this be posted? I made sure every sentence was cited and I was hoping to have it posted by today. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:53, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article appears to be well-cited and holistic. A personal suggestion is to try and limit mid-sentence citations as much as possible, as these can get in the way of readability, but that's no an issue for our purposes. Curbon7 (talk) 00:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Salundik Gohong

• Support Article is very holistic and well-cited. Curbon7 (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support could use minor CEs for grammar, but otherwise fine. Juxlos (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article is in good shape. Wanted to create this a while ago but did not have time for it, thank you Nyanardsan (talk) 02:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Ahmed Qurei

• Support looks good enough. Must be published on main page in RD. Fahads1982 (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are a lots of sentences that are unreferenced that really ought to be. I added the tags, it could be that it's just a question of using thr existing sources and putting them in the right place, but can't have crucial parts going uncited. Abcmaxx (talk) 11:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Tags addressed. - Indefensible (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sourcing issues have been fixed. Article appears to be well-cited and holistic. Curbon7 (talk) 16:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per user above. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Tasuku Tsukada

• Comment Literary citations should be standardized as {{Sfn}}. The lede also needs to be shortened, as it contains a lot of excessive biographical information that should be moved to the body. Curbon7 (talk) 16:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 90% of the prose is about one event (1998 Winter Olympics), what else did he do? Thryduulf (talk) 09:18, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kanak Rele

• Support Everything seems to be cited. --Vacant0 (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Could use some work here and there, but overall the article appears to be sufficient. Article appears to be holistic and well-cited. Curbon7 (talk) 00:21, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mats Löfving

• Support. I have just added an update which says Löfving died within hours of the end of an investigation into his conduct and a murder inquiry has been launched. But it seems possible it was a heart attack that killed him. Moonraker (talk) 18:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - good prose, well sourced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Surprisingly, this is better that the article about him on Swedish WP, where it is also ITN. It might be prudent to add that treating this as a murder investigation is purely standard procedure in any case when a death has occurred at home and the authoroties don't know exactly what happened. No one is seriously thinking he was murdered.[8] The investigation against Löfving has also been dropped now that he's dead.[9] cart-Talk 16:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Ellen Inga O. Hætta

• Comment A little
  WP:PROSELINEy, particularly in the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs of Biography. Is there content that could be added to buff this out (i.e. things she may have done in these posts)? Otherewise, the article is well-cited. Curbon7 (talk) 05:25, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support A little short, but sufficient. Pawnkingthree (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose CV in prose format; article is a list of position and dates but lacks information about what the subject did in those roles. Spencer^T•C 05:14, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose per Spencer. I learned less about her than a CV would tell me. Thryduulf (talk) 09:15, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Simone Segouin

Article: Simone Segouin (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination (Post)
News source(s): L'Echo Republicain
Credits:

• Nominated by Kafoxe (talk · give credit)

Article updated
Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see

WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Interesting article. Kafoxe (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

• Conditional support Article appears to be well-cited. The brief mention of her post-war career is sufficient for holisticity, as that is not the focus. The condition for my support is that her promotion to LT and awarding of the Croix de Guerre is included twice; I have no opinion on which should be removed, so that is up to someone else's discretion. Irrelevant for RD purposes, but that picture is freaking awesome! Curbon7 (talk) 08:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above, rest in peace. Editor 5426387 (talk) 14:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but I don't think people are going to hack it putting up a photo RD when the current image on the ITN template is a landslide. --⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 20:08, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering that at the peak of the Turko-Syrian earthquake, we had folks trying to shuffle stories to keep the earthquake at the top of the ITN section or attempting to remove the section image and replace it with the earthquake image, and how we literally had a story pulled because people were complaining that by including it, it was "crass" and we were disrespecting the victims, you're probably right. Though admittedly the Brazilian carnival landslides are inferior in magnitude to the earthquake. Crusader1096 (message) 21:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per above. Crusader1096 (message) 21:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks good enough. But please, Stop the bandwagon with proposing photos in every RD nominations. _-_Alsor (talk) 23:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree. Curbon7 (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Photo RD, though give the landslide photo whatever seems a fair time to shine first. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've resolved a minor sourcing issue with the article, as well as the duplicate information about her rank and award. Kafoxe (talk) 00:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure what
  WP:POINT is trying to be made, but seriously, can we stop with the parade of attempted photo RDs for comparatively minor figures. The Kip (talk) 02:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  The point is on the Talk Page, and it tries to make clear that a Photo RD is not a gift for some arbitrarily elite class of dead people. Any article with a good photo is eligible for nomination. If you don't want one in this case or the other, just Oppose it like you would have a Text RD, back when those were reserved for the consensual faves. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with The Kip. What's the point of arguing for it here when there is no consensus elsewhere for this Photo RD proposal. Get consensus on the talk page first. Natg 19 (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page, I already am. Here, I just voted for one, not argued. Sort of arguing with Kip, but only to clarify the point, not sway him. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:18, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted – Muboshgu (talk) 05:29, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed without prejudice) Cyclone Freddy

CLOSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Given that almost everybody advocated waiting, and that almost none of them have come back to update their recommendation nearly a week later it seems most prudent to close this nomination without prejudice to a new nomination, whether for a blurb or (as most recently suggested) ongoing, so that it gets more eyes and the latest developments can be evaluated afresh. Thryduulf (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2023 (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.

---

Cyclone Freddy making landfall in Madagascar

Article: Cyclone Freddy (talk · history · tag)
Ongoing item nomination (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Four deaths occur after Cyclone Freddy (satellite loop pictured) makes landfall in Madagascar
News source(s): (Reuters)
Credits:

• Nominated by RandomInfinity17 (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Impacts will only become more clear and notable as time goes on. RandomInfinity17 (talk - contributions) 23:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose animated GIF, otherwise neutral. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Why not animated GIF? :,) - azpineapple | ^T/_C 12:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It's annoying, like an ad from an unscrupulous website. Unlike most ads, though, it restarts abruptly and conveys information the average reader can't comprehend. We've all seen clouds on a map, sure, but it takes at least an amateur meteorologist to recognize which signify death and/or destruction. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I actually think it looks kinda cool PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait My general statement here from 24 hours still stands, as the system's impacts are only just starting to roll in.Jason Rees (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until impacts become clearer. And, oppose the animated GIF. Tails Wx 00:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait per above. The Kip (talk) 02:12, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until the impacts in Madagascar (and quite possibly, Mozambique) have been well-reported. As for the image, I suggest that the satellite image of Freddy's landfall in Madagascar should be used instead. Vida0007 (talk) 10:16, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Changing my vote to support. Article looks good (108 references as of this writing and no sourcing issues), and although the damage and death toll is (thankfully) lower than expected, this is a special case. Freddy has broken several records, and is only the fourth cyclone to travel the entire Indian Ocean. Vida0007 (talk) 09:32, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait until we have more details on the impact. This will likely be a major cyclone and definitely notable. - azpineapple | ^T/_C 12:44, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is why you dont nominate before you know the extent of the impact. Four deaths is normal for most storms and thus shouldnt be posted.
• Noah^Talk 12:51, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There is nothing wrong with nominating it early,

  WP:BITE as it contributes to the notion that ITN/C has a toxic atmosphere. ⛵ WaltClipper -(talk) 13:41, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The problem is the storm isn't done and the most impactful area is likely to be inland Africa during the next few or potentially several days as a result of the rain threat. Decent potential that Madagascar is only a small piece of this rather than the main event. Noah^Talk 14:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  An additional comment... I have honestly been stressed out and pissed off this entire week due to exams, people messing stuff up at my job, and my brakes going out on my car which means yet another expenditure. Noah^Talk 15:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Cyclone Gabrielle had caused 5 deaths when it was posted. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 19:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There were different circumstances that lead to its posting. It wasn't about deaths but rather the severity of the damage and rarity of such impactful storms in NZ. Noah^Talk 19:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support – Article is looking quite nice! ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 13:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait – The effects in Madagascar don't appear to be exceptional; however, it remains to be seen what happens in Mozambique tomorrow. As it stands, this event isn't at ITN levels for tropical cyclones. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Despite the large amount of information in the article, the effects on Madagascar don't appear to be clearer. HurricaneEdgar 04:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait until its impacts becomes clearer after its landfall in Mozambique Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait - Per all above. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 11:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning towards Support - freddy made its 2nd landfall and is weakening overland. more info will come out as time goes by but since the storm is dissipating and we keep voting for "wait" then it might be too late to be featured in the news Rainbow Galaxy POC (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ongoing Article is being updated and the storm is still active. It's pretty much been stationary and just dumping rain the past few days which has led to serious flooding across Mozambique and Zimbabwe... Death total is up to 16 and the storm isn't expected to dissipate for a decent while so I feel ongoing would be appropriate. Noah^Talk 01:54, 1 March 2023 (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.

(Posted) RD: Nadja Tiller

• Support Article is well-cited and holistic. Filmography passed a source spot-check. Good work! Curbon7 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - article seems to meet requirements. - Indefensible (talk) 06:00, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 03:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: J. B. Kristiadi

• Support Article is well-cited and holistic. Prose is a little funky in spots, but this isn't an issue for our purposes. Good work as usual! Curbon7 (talk) 16:27, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD.
  Jeromi Mikhael this article could also use some wikilinks from other articles if appropriate. Spencer^T•C 03:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply
  ]