Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/November 2020

---

Nominator's comments: Musicologist, internationally known as Grieg scholar, 101. The article was basically there, translated in May, I just made an external link to a ref and added 2 obits. More may come. Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A decent article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:51, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, I added a few ISBN's looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 23:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 01:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Added some references to the article, seems to have no major issues --Andrei (talk) 10:35, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Appears stubby, can do well with an ib and some expansion (see the ruwiki article). Gotitbro (talk) 10:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Added more text from Russian --Andrei (talk) 11:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Support Article looks fine now. @Andrew J.Kurbiko: Please also add an infobox to the article. Gotitbro (talk) 02:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Added --Andrei (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose missing some citations and no mention in the article of her death. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Added more references --Andrei (talk) 12:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support The article is now much better. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 07:56, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Andrei can you add a sentence about her death if you have sources? should be good for RD when that is added. When that is done count this as Support JW 1961 Talk 21:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  There is one already. Can you clarify what else is needed? --Andrei (talk) 23:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 00:44, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Myself and Schazjmd worked to ud the page, they got the formal 'update' edit in Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:53, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks in good enough shape to me.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not thrilled that for such a short bio, the biblography was previously shuffled off to a separate article. Yes, 100+ works is long, but I feel it would be better for that to be included in the bio page, and which would only need to add the necessary ISBNs for published works to complete referencing there. I won't oppose posting if that's not done here, but I just feel it's better overall if there's no reasonable way to expand the present article. --Masem (t) 01:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say the exact opposite. Articles that are mostly bibliography, compared to the amount of text, are a eyesore, and this seems like a neat way to have resolved that issue, with a summary remaining at the parent. Few will be interested in that great long list of works, but for the few that are, they now have a page to visit.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, a giant in his field. On the afternoon when the first images from the Viking 1 Mars lander were printed in the newspapers in 1976 I showed him a front page (he hadn't seen the TV relay). Bova immediately said "Looks like New Jersey". Randy Kryn (talk) 02:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks fine for an RD even without the bibliography. Gotitbro (talk) 03:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted - Dumelow (talk) 07:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Article on DeepMind's Alpha Fold needs a lot of development, but this looks like a very big deal.
John Moult, organiser of CASP: "This is an enormous breakthrough. A 50-year-old grand challenge in computer science has been to a large degree solved." (Times). Andrei Lupas: "It’s a game changer. This will change medicine. It will change research. It will change bioengineering. It will change everything." (Nature). Venki Ramakrishnan 'said the achievement was stunning. “It has occurred decades before many people in the field would have predicted... it will fundamentally change biological research." (Times) The Times has been running this as top story on its website. Jheald (talk) 19:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Comment. I wrote up a little bit about AlphaFold which you can use as the target article. It is currently a start-class article, but, will definitely require someone more knowledgeable to help expand before it can get to homepage levels. I can lend a hand later tonight. Edits and expansion to the article is completed. Article has shaped up well to a C-class article. I feel pretty good about it. Now, if folks can hash out news-readiness and the blurb, I think this is good to go :) Ktin (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Can we get a source from a reputable science journal that's NOT some pop science press release bullshit? If it's as groundbreaking as the scientists say it is, then they can get a peer reviewer to state that.--WaltCip-(talk) 20:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @WaltCip: Nature and Science are pretty much the top of the tree, as science news reporting goes. Venki Ramakrishnan is President of the Royal Society, a structural molecular biologist himself with a Nobel prize to prove it, and unaffiliated to both DeepMind and the competition. What speaks for AlphaFold are its results -- see eg the schematic from the article in Science for a sense of the degree to which AlphaFold has scored way better than has ever been achieved before, and done it across the full range of hundred or so structures that entrants were asked to try to solve. Also impressive is Lupas's testimony of how he gave AlphaFold one more sequence, which his team had been trying to understand for 10 years. Half an hour later came back a structure, which explained all the data they had been struggling with. The CASP conference continues until Thursday, so expect more comment and information and assesment to come. Automated structure prediction really has been seen as the 'holy grail' of structural biology for 50 years. CASP is a reputable competition and collaborative conference, the benchmark in the field, which has witnessed steady but slow improvements for 20 years. But this year AlphaFold has "annihilated" the challenges. That is why this news is getting such a reaction. Jheald (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Notability seems there, but the blurb needs some tweaking to be more understandable.  Nixinova   T   C   22:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, it's ελληνική to me. – Sca (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Added. Nixinova and Sca, please see if Altblurb and Altblurb2 are helpful :) Ktin (talk) 23:24, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've changed the link in the alt-blurbs from protein folding problem to protein folding, as the latter gives a better general way in. Jheald (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Clearly notable for an encyclopedia. I'd prefer the first blurb. --bender235 (talk) 00:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on article quality + significance but I yearn for a slightly more usable blurb (even with alt2). Its unfortunate these problems aren't as famous as the various math challenges where we could just name and point to them. But that's my only issue otherwise, article's been improved when I first peaked at it. --Masem (t) 01:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a variant of alt 2.  Nixinova   T   C   03:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb The original one that is. The target article could use some multimedia and expansion but is okayish. Gotitbro (talk) 04:23, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Big scientific news. I think Alt-2 is the best option. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I won't oppose this, but we should be clear that this is a rather incremental improvement. It is marginally more accurate (against a curated database of empirical data) than previous computational approaches, while still not being able to solve all of the problems in the curated database, and certainly not all problems that arise outside of curation. The lede in the article gets this point across, but the blurb should do so as well, in a way that doesn't just handwave terms like "significant barrier".130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. This builds on what has gone before, but it is more than just an "incremental improvement". Understand the scoring system here. 2018's score of 45 means that 45% of atoms were in more-or-less the right place. Which meant that 55% weren't. Which meant the 2018 predictions weren't accurate enough to be biologically useful. In contrast a score of 85-90 means that all but 10 to 15% of atoms are placed just where they should be. (And some of that remaining 10-15% may not have a stable position - in reality it may be a bit that flaps about). AlphaFold 2 is predicting structures accurately and robustly enough (and with well-calibrated estimates of local confidence), that its predictions are reliable enough to meaningfully understand the biological structure of the protein. That has never been consistently achieved before -- and AlphaFold is managing this across the full range of sequences it was presented with (with, as I understand it, just a single exception in the whole of the CASP test set). This is beyond a tipping point, it is revolutionary. In context: 90% position accuracy on this metric is as good as you can get from structures 'solved' with the best available experimental data. (For which people win prizes). And AlphaFold 2 is consistent achieving this, or getting damn close, across the board. Jheald (talk) 09:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People win those prizes because they are doing something truely novel: they are solving previously unknown structures. This is solving a subset of those already-solved structures, again, in the hopes that it might one day solve an unknown structure. The field has moved onto complex interactions and macrocomplexes, and single molecule folding has become a purely academic interest. Which isn't bad or disqualifying, it will have impacts regarding time and scale of certain projects, but "revolutionary" it is not. I have added an altblurb to reflect the meat and bones of the current news.130.233.3.185 (talk) 09:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The algorithm didn't know the structures had been solved, nor did it use any of the information from those solutions. The whole point of the CASP test set is that it is designed to be a typical cross-section of proteins that is representative of proteins for which we have sequence data but no 3d structure. So solving a CASP protein is expected to be as difficult as solving a typical unknown sequence. Currently there are 200 million known protein sequences, with 30 million new sequences being added every year, compared to about 170,000 proteins with known structures. Typically it currently takes an entire PhD to solve one sequence, if you can get the experiments to work and if you can get the protein to crystallise and if you can make sense of the results - none of which are guaranteed. There was a protein (without a known structure) that Lupas's team gave as an 'extra' to AlphaFold, that they had been trying to understand for ten years. AlphaFold came back with a prediction that they were able to confirm explained their experimental data, and which they were able to tweak in 30 minutes to give a final structure. So AlphaFold has in fact already been used to solve completely unknown proteins. Yes, of course one wants to know the proteins interact with other molecules, how they function as molecular machines. But getting a structure is an essential prerequisite for this -- it is anything but a "purely academic interest".

Secondly to say that AlphaFold has "successfully doubled the accuracy of computationally-predicted protein folding" is to profoundly misinterpret the significance of what the AlphaFlow team has achieved. More relevant is that they have reduced the mismatch between the prediction and what experiment can reliably determine from almost half the protein to between nought and five percent. That is a step forward of truly huge significance. Previously predictions were not reliable or precise enough to inform biological understanding of the protein. Now, on the strength of the CASP competition results, they are. That is a sea change, as well as an extraordinary intellectual achievement. Jheald (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per IP above. It sounds like the popular press has over-blown the significance of this. If Alt3 is correct, then it doesn't look like the sort of major breakthrough that would warrant ITN. Also, none of the Hooks give any indication of why this is important, to a nonspecialist.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:42, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Amakuru, definitely respect your views. But, as a layperson, this is how I read it. Proteins -- linear structures of amino acids -- fold into 3D shapes and structures -- which eventually what causes them to express themselves and have the intended effects -- good / bad etc. So, for biologists to explore drug discovery / disease research etc -- they need the final structure that proteins take shape. But, the only way currently to do it accurately is via laboratory examinations. These lab examinations -- are time consuming and expensive. So, computational algorithms can do that. But, until now their accuracy levels were not up there. Now, accuracy levels have reached upwards of a score of 90 (lets say 90% just for this conversation, though there are some more nuances). Now suddenly, the algorithms become valuable as a way to determine these protein structures sans experimentation (x-ray crystallography etc.). So, the barrier between when algorithms become accurate enough to be truly valuable has been breached. Hence, this is important.

  PS: The above explanation is quite simplistic. But, this is the gist of what I have learnt as a layperson. Ktin (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not an expert in AI or protein folding, but I know enough to realise that this is a major advance if the claims are true, definitely worth an ITN blurb. The issue is whether now is the right moment. I'm a bit hesitant that the researchers haven't published their results in a peer-reviewed paper, which is usually our threshold for science stories, but I suppose they were part of the community annual testing process so have at least had some scrutiny by experts. However they haven't publicly described the methods used yet, or released the algorithm. It's undeniably in the news now though. I'm therefore torn and refraining from !voting. Modest Genius ^talk 12:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS. If we do post this, the blurb should link to Protein structure prediction, which is specifically about the computational problem, not protein folding which is about the natural process. Modest Genius ^talk 15:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Obscure and arcane. It may be significant, but will be understood only by a specialized niche audience. Most readers won't have a clue about what "protein folding" is, much less what this development may signify. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Front page of The Times newspaper this morning with photo [1], plus two inside pages and leader. Do they really have such a higher opinion of their readers than we do of ours? And aren't encyclopedias here to inform people? Jheald (talk) 13:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it here at the moment. Anyway, the hoi polloi don't read The Times of London. – Sca (talk) 14:28, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my French, but this is an asinine argument. Protein folding is the premier problem in computational biology. People unaware of its significance or implications can read the respective articles. As I wrote above, this achievement is clearly relevant for an encyclopedia, just as gravitational wave detection or the black hole image was before (both of which we featured on ITN). The number of readers who at the time knew what a gravitational wave was was probably hardly bigger than the ones you suspect knowing of protein folding now. --bender235 (talk) 05:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Most scientific discovery is incremental. To the extent that we ever see advancement quickly enough to qualify here, this nom is as good as it gets. GreatCaesarsGhost 17:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Amakuru. Also, the body of the article hasn't been updated properly beside a small 3-line paragraph about the, uhh, "breakthrough". Also, also, I've also counted 7 yays and 4 nays as of right now, with nays becoming more frequent as time goes by, so I'm removing the ready tag for now. CoronaOneLove (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CoronaOneLove: we're not counting votes on Wikipedia. The embarrassingly uninformed statements of people unaware of the significance of this breakthrough can be safely ignored. This is easily the most important methodological discovery in biology since CRISPR gene editing a decade ago (and which won a Nobel just this year). --bender235 (talk) 04:40, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, CRISPR and others win prizes because what they are doing is novel. This is partially solving, to a better degree than previously, already-solved problems. It's an extended machine learning training. I have a nearly-full career of "we've finally solved the protein folding problem" behind me; I don't make uninformed statements here, so you can kindly unstrike my alt blurb relating to the mathematical scoring of this competition.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calling this merely an "improvement on an already-solved problem" is like saying AlphaGo beating Lee Sedol was only slightly better than beating a random 6-yr old at Go. And your claim isn't even plausible. If achieving 92% accuracy was that easy, why hasn't it occurred in the past 26 years of CASP already? --bender235 (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. This is a major breakthrough with huge implications to all bio-related sciences. This is akin in significance to CRISPR (which won the noble prize, and which was posted). Also, all the blurbs have links too, and links are meant to be read. 74.101.118.65 (talk) 21:44, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Equivalent to a press release. Absolute support once peer-review comes out. Albertaont (talk) 04:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Albertaont:. Please, notice that this is more than a press release. The results have been shown during the CASP meeting, solving previous unknown protein foldings with 90% accuracy. Even, an unknown folding, that a research group has been battling for ten years, has been solved as an "extrawork". All the results has been "peer reviewed", in a way by the jury, formed by top field experts. Also, this groundbreaking work is already In the news, as in Nature and Science, etc. Alexcalamaro (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: how long does it take to sort this thing out? This is getting embarrassing for Wikipedia. --bender235 (talk) 17:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Agreeing with bender235 here. Everything else for November 30th has already been posted - how has one of the most important scientific advancements since the discovery of CRISPR not been posted yet? -- Glencoe2004 (talk) 03:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Maybe we could ping to some biology related administrators, as @Keilana, TimVickers, Protonk, Evercat, and Vanamonde93: Could you please, take a look at this ITN proposal ? Thanks. Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Protein folding is far from my specialty but that said, this is a huge breakthrough that has implications for every branch of the life sciences, especially medicine. The computational challenge of protein folding has hindered advancement in a myriad of fields for years and winning CASP is newsworthy in and of itself, imo. Keilana (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Another comment: a week later and still no decision? What in the world is going on here? What an embarrassment. --bender235 (talk) 20:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Senegalese footballer, notably in the UK with Fulham and Portsmouth. Article is generally good, a couple of missing cites I'll try to fix - Dumelow (talk) 18:35, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I am not impressed with the sourcing in the article, but it looks okay. Govvy (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support not sure I follow the comment above but hey, ymmv. Looks fine to me, RIP big man. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:39, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support While could be expanded beyond the career (personal life/family etc.), looks okay. Gotitbro (talk) 23:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Darth Vader’s body and the Green Cross Code man. Stephen 07:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, oppose blurb He played an extremely recognizable role in an extremely successful work, but I don't think he's enough of a household name for a blurb. Edit: He's not a household name from my perspective in the United States. Users from the UK, please correct me if I'm wrong Kevillarreal 08:31, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD article is in good shape. Not even close to a blurb IMO, although like Kevillarreal I am American and lack international context - I'm unsure how "big" the Green Cross Code was in the UK. -- a lad insane (channel two) 09:41, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, many citations needed including about half the "Acting" section, most of the "Star Wars" section and some personal health information which could have BLP issues. I've tagged these passages - Dumelow (talk) 10:00, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Front page of BBC, Guardian, NY Times, Washington Post and other news sites. Torqueing (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The cn tags need to be fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 13:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now, at least 12 CN tags, will revist JW 1961 Talk 19:07, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to Support 1 cn left (that sentence can be removed if no citation forthcoming), much improved referencing since yesterday JW 1961 Talk 18:48, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD Clearly newsworthy. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Front page on a lot of major news outlets. I am not too worried about the cn tags. The article has some a lot of good sources anyway. Govvy (talk) 23:28, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The cn tags are the only the reason this isn't ready for RD (RD only requires articles to not have major issues like main tags etc. not their notability). Gotitbro (talk) 23:42, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gotitbro: I've tried to fix a few CN tags. Still needs a bit of work know. Govvy (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose this is a BLP. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man: I always assume BLP stands for biography of living person! Unless you mean something else, so I am a bit confused by your oppose statement! :/ Govvy (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Govvy, the recently deceased count under BLP. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, far too many uncited sentences, however I'd suggest that a lot of the {{cn}} tags are actually regarding sentences that could be removed anyway - a lot of trivia there - so it may not take too much to get it up to scratch. Black Kite (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because all important things have citations. A citation I just provided, for example, confirmed that the convention Prowse attended in 2007 was to celebrate the 30th anniversary of Star Wars and not some other occasion. This is not a fact about David Prowse so using its tag as an argument against RD is pedantry. Connor Behan (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Newsworthy, reported by numerous major news outlets. A noteworthy actor and celebrity. – Crackersgreen (talk) 06:50, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We can get seven cites for one sentence, but seven sentences can't get one cite? Mlb96 (talk) 08:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose It's getting there, but there are still some outstanding tags to deal with. P-K3 (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Switching to Support now that tags have been dealt with.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – RD only, mainly because most people have no idea who played Darth Vader, though most know who the cinematic D.V. was/is.
  – Sca (talk) 23:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:15, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Not the longest of articles but I've given it a bit of a tidy and think it meets the requirements - Dumelow (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article covers all bases. Yoninah (talk) 09:36, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well sourced article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I looked at this yesterday and meant to write a comment questioning the use of scare quotes, but that's no reason to prevent this from being posted. I naïvely assumed this would sail through.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 00:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: French press baron. Article is a little short but I've been working on an expansion - Dumelow (talk) 08:57, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Paris: Fayard under Works needs a ref, but otherwise good to go.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:51, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I missed that one. Now added ISBN and OCLC - Dumelow (talk) 11:20, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Short decently referenced artcle, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 22:12, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 00:21, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 71.190.46.242 (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Is this unusual? The Boko Haram insurgency has been going on for quite sometime and while this might be the largest attack this year there have been a lot more deadly attacks by Boko Haram in Nigeria. I wouldn't mind supporting this if shown otherwise. Also the article is not up to par currently for blurbing. Gotitbro (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We routinely post routine weather events that happen dozens of times in a year in a small portion of the earth with far fewer deaths. I would start with "wow, this is terrible" and go from there. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:43, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is not my point. My point is there have been much more deadly attacks by Boko Haram and none of them saw the light of the day at ITN. There was also an attack in Afghanistan just yesterday but that won't be here either. These are long-running conflicts (81 people were killed back in June), I am only asking how is this unusual in that for a blurb. Though I am tilting towards a support if the article is expanded a bit. Gotitbro (talk) 00:26, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking cause if we post we will be breaking from "precedent" here on ITN and would be opening up to more such articles in ongoing conflicts but would be perhaps for the good. Gotitbro (talk) 00:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point is this is the worst attack of the year. It's not humdrum, run of the mill weather that we keep insisting on posting. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Like Gotitbro said, its definitely a stub for now. I can change this if it was shown that the attack was novel in some way, i.e. new organization, new tactics, better weaponry. I will revisit my vote as I do expect updates to be made to article. Albertaont (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak supportComment 110 people murdered in one go? And we'd debate if that's newsworthy?? Yet happily post some wind that kills people every year, with startling regularity. I think ITNC is now officially out of kilter. Article could be improved a little. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not trying to be rude, but just an observation -- when we have mass shootings in the United States, you routinely vote against them, arguing that its not newsworthy, because it happens so often here. What is the line of newsworthy? -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 19:13, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not rude at all, and I welcome your question. I guess I would suggest that a single attack which kills more than 100 individuals in a country where this hasn't happened for a nomination that I can recall this year, I'd offer my support. Mass shootings in the US reached a point where they happen literally every day and like the "Atlantic hurricane season", we have to get used to the idea that when the "norm" is defined by whacky gun-toting idiots shooting a few people every day in the US or some wind routinely kills a few dozen people as it does every single year, we need to look for more to find something that is encylcopdeically significant. Cheers, feel free to ping me if you want to discuss this in more detail! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral per the above. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose The blurb being phrased as "the deadliest so far this year" is not encouraging in terms of newsworthiness in context. Kingsif (talk) 04:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose only on article quality. The blurb can be de-escalated, but the article seems rather weak if this is considered the deadliest such attack. It's clearly a ITN-post type event, but the quality should be improved. --Masem (t) 05:36, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Agree that article quality is not suitable as yet. I could support if that is resolved. Pigeonholing the blurb needed to be fixed: "against civilians" - has there been larger crimes against non-civilians?; "in Nigeria" - presumably this was needed to exclude the 600+ dead in Ethiopia; "this year" - just how routine is such violence there? Might it be cleaner to post "110 people were killed in the largest Boko Haram attack since [year X] "?130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:55, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support news: for **bleep**'s sake it is a massacre. How can it be 'oppose the news' for being not notable???--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 09:33, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because it's easily notable enough. Although many mass murders have occurred in Nigeria in recent years, this is the most deadly there for years (against any target), as well as one of the more deadly massacres in the world this year. The Gubio massacre was also easily notable enough for ITN, but that article is far too short for it to have had a chance of being posted. Jim Michael (talk) 12:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is short, but well referenced and seems to have what is known so far. Topic is being covered adequately by reliable news sources. Checks all of the boxes. --Jayron32 12:38, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on article quality. Five sentences about the massacre itself. There is also detail in the lead which is both unreferenced and not mentioned anywhere else in the article. I don't think we post stubs with unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @The Rambling Man: double voting?! Make sure to clarify which one is your "real" vote. 108.27.210.118 (talk) 23:07, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Cheers LL, I've addressed that. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:10, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per TRM. It's narrowly over the 1500 byte threshold, but I don't think the coverage in the main "Massacre" section is sufficient at the moment. Expand with more details, and we'll be good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportOppose At the moment, as article is a stub. Support on notability though. Article is now good enough to post, IMO.(Not to be "that guy" but if this happened in the US the news would be all over it) Gex4pls (talk) 15:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Significant death toll regardless of the insurgency. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:00, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have added some more info to the article and took out the unsourced info because I could not find anything about it.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 03:03, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Even though the article is short it's well referenced and stands comparable to other newly created conflicts/air crash articles that we usually post. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support Death toll is clearly significant, appears to be the largest death toll for a single Boko Haram attack this year, the largest death toll for a single Boko Haram attack in many years, and the second-largest terrorist attack of the year based on this list. Article is also well-cited. Only reason this is "weak" is that the writing quality of the article could be better. NorthernFalcon (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I came to support based on improvements in the article, but in checking the recent references I see that the death toll has been revised down to 43, or "dozens", with "about" 15 kidnappings. None of the blurbs work now. If RSs can't come up with a precise figure and we can't post "about dozens", then I can't see a way forward with this.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:10, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see where it was revised "down to 43". It is still 110 in the infobox and this the Washington Post and UK's Guardian's figure. – Ammarpad (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BBC from the in-article sources. "More than 43" and "dozens" and "about" and so on. The blurb will have to be worded to get this imprecision in casualties across. Note that this article revising the casualties does comes a few days after those publications claiming a precise 110.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – At 450 words the article seems rather thin for an event in which 110 people reportedly were killed. Much of the text is background and reactions; the massacre description totals 211 words. – Sca (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: American internet entrepreneur. Article seems adequate, I added one or two missing refs - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is well-sourced. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Unexpected and tragic death. Article is probably C or B class. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is good and unexpected/unfortunate death. Gotitbro (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. RIP. Tragic and a life lost much much too early. Please can an experienced editor read the article to see if the article reads like a Linkedin bio / resume? I remember this was a concern with a different internet entrepreneur sometime back. This is not an oppose vote. Ktin (talk) 17:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Essentially ready, but given Hsieh's lengthy tenure at Zappo's, could possibly use some expansion there to give it increased depth. The NYT obit and CNN story have additional details (initial rejected sale to Amazon, corporate culture, etc.). Spencer^T•C 18:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer, thanks to your NYT link, paragraph added about Zappos which was indeed extraordinary. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 00:37, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: He was considered Iran's top nuclear scientist, an important distinction for a country with a "controversial" nuclear program. Article appears to be adequately sourced.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb This may be as explosive as the Assassination of Qasem Soleimani, depending on how the news pans out. Article is definitely not a stub. Albertaont (talk) 18:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Quite a shocking assassination Kingsif (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: added a blurb per Albertaont.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 18:33, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Blurb this will be in the news in Iran + its neighbours for a while, possibly the rest of the world as well, and might have international consequences. Banedon (talk) 18:45, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not flashing here. Just a headline. 2A02:2A57:173D:0:B525:8A17:4F58:B411 (talk) 13:40, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's now a page called "Assassination of Mohsen Fakhrizadeh", so support blurb but wait until it's no longer a stub. Davey2116 (talk) 19:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely inappropriate for WP to be calling it an assassination. "Apparent assassination" as per CNN is correct as it is the claim of Iran. He was clearly attacked and killed, but whether this an assassination is yet known. --Masem (t) 19:27, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said he was killed. That IS an assassination. 2A02:2A57:173D:0:B525:8A17:4F58:B411 (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Are we really taking state media claims at face value and blurbing them now? Did someone else even verify the killing/assassination or even the death? And can someone confirm if he actually was as instrumental to the Iranian nuclear program as is being portrayed in the media. Seems like media and political hype to me and not encyclopedic ITN material. Gotitbro (talk) 20:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • NYTimes called him the closest thing to an Iranian Oppenheimer in 2014. Wall Street Journal called him Tehran’s atomic weapons guru in 2012. The Guardian reported that he was believed to be in charge of Iran’s nuclear program in 2010.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:07, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The media are at least treating that Fakhrizadeh was killed as legit, but they are putting caution on the claim it was an assassination (particularly one performed by Israel). It's fair we treat the killing as verified but put the assassination with the same bit of doubt. --Masem (t) 22:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Masem, I agree with that, just unsure about the specific process. Should I propose another alt where I just change assasination to killing, or will the posting admin edit accordingly?  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:29, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Just add an alt blurb. I have done so. -- KTC (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Convinced about his stature and that the death isn't being doubted. But only a confirmed assassination would make this blurb worthy. I would vote Support for RD and Wait for blurb but the article is too poor/stubby for either of them, so my oppose stands. Gotitbro (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gotitbro I'm completly agree with you. We must Wait before Blurb, but Support RD, until further consecuencies, if there are, that I'am afraid that will be. Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Assassination of a high-profile physicist in the Iranian nuclear programme is a big deal with high potential for further implications. Also, the story is already top news in the media.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD – Wait re blurb. It's not as if Mohsen Fakhrizadeh was a household name in the English-speaking world. Perpetrator(s) unknown. What may happen as a result of this event is pure speculation at this pt. – Sca (talk) 22:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD the fork for the "killing" article seems premature and unnecessary given the BLP is only barely C-class and a few hundred words. Suggest merging the detail back into the main article and opting for RD only. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:50, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose this is madness, we have a stub BLP target and a stub "killing" article. The merge needs to happen before there can be any consideration of posting here. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is not even RD worthy let alone a blurb (that is even if it was notable). Gotitbro (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, at least lets have 1 article that may turn out to be RD worthy JW 1961 Talk 23:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saying the obvious There are more sources and the article is better developed than all but 1 of the RDs posted right now. Albertaont (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Highly unusual death. Targeted assassinations of major political/military/scientific figures seem to be becoming a habit of certain states. Also, we posted both the murder of Soleimani and Khashoggi, as well as the alleged assassination attempt against Skripals. This is on the same scale. CoronaOneLove (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Hmmm, this'll be interesting. Definitely news worthy This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb – Nothing has happened except that Khamenei and Rouhani have darkly vowed the usual enlightened response: Revenge. – Sca (talk) 14:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: For an academic, his career section is almost entirely devoted to what he did after 2007, except for 2 sentences. Needs more thorough coverage (if available) to be RD ready. Spencer^T•C 17:56, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Major news item. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 07:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Altblurb Per instructions: if a person's death is only notable for what they did while alive, it belongs as an RD link. The opposite is the case here; the death is notable for the manner in which is occurred and for the likely repercussions. This should go up as a regular blurb, and at the moment I don't see any particular problem with the article.130.233.213.199 (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is consensus to post. Previously, there were opposes based on the stub of the article, its fair to say those have been well resolved by now. Albertaont (talk) 15:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either RD or blurb. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Doesn't seem that significant in the grand scheme of things. Not sure about RD - leaning oppose too, on quality. The article is a bit of a mess of one-line tidbits right now, for example "The killing has been compared to that of Qasem Soleimani, which was reciprocated by an Iranian missile attack", which gives no real insight into who made such a comparison, and what they thought its relevance was.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:30, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb This is a very significant development for the country of Iran, and the world, considering it was the assassination of a scientist. Maqdisi117 (talk) 02:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD only in a way it's been good this was delayed because it's clear that this has dropped off news reporting so RD only. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Getting stale for a blurb, but still okay for RD. – Sca (talk) 14:07, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD now article has been improved. -- P-K3 (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 01:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: American judge. Article looks reasonably good - Dumelow (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice little article, decently sourced JW 1961 Talk 12:01, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Clean article. C-Class Bio. Well referenced. Good to go. Request the posting Admin to start from the bottom of the stack. Ktin (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 17:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Father of Indian IT industry. Padma Bhushan awardee. Article requires citations for the positions held and honors section. Also, some effort in streamlining content. I will work on these changes, unless someone wants to lend a hand. All edits and minor expansion done. Looks good to go to homepage / RD. RIP Mr Kohli. Ktin (talk) 19:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC) Ktin (talk) 15:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Everything looks properly sourced to me. Mlb96 (talk) 19:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Another one looks good to go on RD JW 1961 Talk 22:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: This is Sudan's last democratically elected prime minister before he was toppled in a 1989 coup. COVID-19-related, so it needs to expand. 36.68.190.244 (talk) 09:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, I've added tags for where additional citations are needed - Dumelow (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose {{cn}} tags need to go, otherwise consider a support from me if those are fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sadly, a day later the CN's remain JW 1961 Talk 13:20, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Change to Support - nice job fixing this article JW 1961 Talk 23:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Can we have another look at this? The CN's have been fixed. Joofjoof (talk) 21:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nice job fixing the cn tags.~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks ready for posting, Amakuru? —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Apologies Brigade Piron, I don't think I got a ping notification for this one and I've only just seen it, don't know where the notification went!  — Amakuru (talk) 00:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: American labor economist; Death announced on this date. Further edits and expansion including the labor and personnel economics and other research sections completed. Article is good, well referenced, and clean. Ready to go to homepage / RD. Solid C-class biography. Ktin (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well sourced, look good for RD JW 1961 Talk 11:54, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please can I request another pair of eyes on this one. Agree with JW, and I think this can go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 15:05, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 17:42, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Spencer, Thanks. Much appreciated. Often times, economics articles tend to get too complex very soon, but, this one reads good. Also, if someone wants to get some of Lazear's thoughts outside of this article, watch this short video. RIP. Ktin (talk) 17:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Portuguese football goalkeeper with Benfica. I've expanded and tidied a bit. A little short, but probably sufficient - Dumelow (talk) 09:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Short but RD passable. Gotitbro (talk) 12:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above, short but what is there is well sourced JW 1961 Talk 13:45, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted - this one was technically stale, as he died on the 23rd and the bottom entry was already the 24th. But I'm feeling generous, so it can sit at the bottom of the list for a few hours.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: French table tennis player. I am working to expand the article - Dumelow (talk) 08:59, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Needs expansion but I think still okay for an RD. Gotitbro (talk) 12:04, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Yes short but adequate for RD, well sourced JW 1961 Talk 22:08, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 22:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American football coach on the Dallas Cowboys coaching staff and former player. Was erroneously reported to have died on November 24. He was confirmed to have died November 25.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support Playing career could be expanded but passes for a RD. Gotitbro (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Clean article, but, can we attempt a round of expansion before we finalize this one? Agree with Gotitbro that this one seems quite thin. Also, a matter of personal stylization, but, I would suggest removing sub-headings within the playing career section if there are only one line entries underneath each of them. Ktin (talk) 15:19, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Had a 4-year NFL career and was an All-American in college. Not in a state of posting without further expansion of college and NFL career sections. Spencer^T•C 18:26, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, nominator has recently expanded the article and I believe it is now sufficient - Dumelow (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support adequate. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Good work.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Australian-American Banker. Former World Bank President. Article will require edits, largely around fixing ^{[citation needed]} tags which have now been added. Citation tags have been fixed. Further edits and expansion done. Looks a clean B-class biography. Good to go to homepage / RD, imo. Ktin (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Numerous CN tags, not yet fit for rd. Gex4pls (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gex4pls:, of course, I was the one who added those tags. I have filled them in now. Have a look. I will be awake for ~2 hours for any edits. Cheers Ktin (talk) 03:49, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, I've changed my oppose to a Support, as all the tags have been cited, and the Gex4pls (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2020 (UTC) article is good to go.[reply]

• Support Looks pretty good. Gotitbro (talk) 05:58, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this one? I believe this is ready to go. Ktin (talk) 15:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 18:14, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 --Torsodog^Talk 18:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well sourced, lots of prose, fitting the template of past years. In a normal year, I would've worked on this page with Torsodog and would be a co-nom, but it's 2020. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Again?! I'm starting to wonder whether this league deserves its ITNR listing if it's always won by the same team. In the last four years the Hawks have won the Japan Series 4-0, 4-0, 4-1 and 4-2 (in games). They won two of the previous three years too, so 6 of the last 7 championships overall. That does not suggest a competitive league. Modest Genius ^talk 18:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Celtics once won 12 championships in 14 years.331dot (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, is there any evidence that fans and/or the media are less interested? 331dot (talk) 18:42, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just look at the winner of the Japan Series to determine the competitiveness of an entire league. While the Hawks do happen to be a powerhouse at the moment, you must also take into account that NPB's playoff system is designed specially so that the best regular-season teams advance. That isn't how MLB's and other leagues playoff formats are necessarily designed. --Torsodog^Talk 20:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• They have a dynasty. My Yankees won the World Series in 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, and should've won 2001 too. Stupid bloop single. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a nonsense argument. Manchester United won the Premier League something like 13 times in 21 years but no-one has ever suggested that the PL is not a competitive league. Try again. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support debate the ITNR-ness at WT:ITNR. This is a good example of an ITNR article which has been kept up to snuff and so is ready to go at a moment's notice. Nice. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article looks fine, ITNR nom. Gotitbro (talk) 22:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this has been good to go for several hours now. Come on. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:50, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 98.116.81.188 (talk) 22:28, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 22:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the Šimonytė article looks okay, the Prime Minister of Lithuania is rubbish. I note there's no bold target in the blurb, so let's be careful before posting that we select the one(s) which are up to scratch. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:12, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't ITNR for the office holders? I've gone ahead bolded Šimonytė as that is what it should be and what the nominator likely meant. Gotitbro (talk) 23:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Simonyte’s article good. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Indian politician. COVID-19. Edits reasonably done. Meets basic hygiene requirements. Ktin (talk) 02:00, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - one citation needed at the top of the political career section, and ref [12] is both a dead-link and a bare URL. Once those things fixed, should be good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Amakuru, Thanks much Amakuru and good catch on the dead-link / bare-URL. Fixed both issues. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Almost feel apologetic asking this on a day like today, but, any additional pairs of eyes on this one? Thanks much. Ktin (talk) 17:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. No obvious issues. Decent article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in agreement with above. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:30, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:48, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Former Nigerien president. Doesn't seem to be anything major missing - Dumelow (talk) 11:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb Article, sourcing look fine (could use some layout changes). Major leader in Niger and Africa, I think this merits a blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 14:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:31, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support (RD) Decent article, well referenced JW 1961 Talk 22:23, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Canadian ice hockey player. Recognised as the first indigenous NHL player, and later served decades in a political role in his community. Article has been updated to reflect his life. Kaiser matias (talk) 03:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good. But Kaiser matias, please either source or remove the "Survivors Speak Report" blockquote. Gotitbro (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. Kaiser matias (talk) 06:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Pretty much legendary French rugby player. Article is mostly unreferenced right now... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 07:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This will need much more sourcing ("Club and international honours" is entirely uncited at present) and an extension of the lead text. —Brigade Piron (talk) 17:49, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Gave the citations a good shot across the board. I think it is well sourced right now. But, that said, I think this article will benefit from a comprehensive re-write. Unfortunately, I know neither rugby nor French. If someone can give it a shot, I can lend an additional hand as well. Edits done. I learnt a little bit of rugby in the process. Did you know that goals are called "tries" in Rugby? Can you try to score a try? That said, truly sad end to a life. RIP. Ktin (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Inclined to Support now, much improved from earlier thanks to Ktin, one CN left but I think that sentence "nightmare moment" could be just deleted if no source available (I couldn't find anything either) JW 1961 Talk 22:29, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Joseywales1961, My bad, I had that link figured out, but, missed updating the link and removing the cn tag. Just did that. I will also spend some time rewriting portions of the article. Really sad end. RIP. Ktin (talk) 22:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ktin nice work, this now looks good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:15, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Stephen, Spencer, Amakuru, Black Kite, and John M Wolfson:, pardon the intrusion. This is good to go to homepage. Ktin (talk) 01:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 01:22, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Australian journalist. Edits done. Solid C-class biography. Looks good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 22:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Suppport decent enough, good work Ktin, not for the first time lately. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  John M Wolfson, wow that was quick! Thanks much John!

  PS: If any of you are familiar with Rater.js tool, can you have a look at this article with the tool. It kept saying start class as I was editing and then, boom, it now says B class. I find that hard to believe. Ktin (talk) 00:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not have knowledge of that tool, but I might use it in the future! – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Great tool, I use it on NPP as a lot of editors don't create talk page when creating articles JW 1961 Talk 22:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Confirmed mass atrocity. Doubtlessly newsworthy. Will work on an article for the EHRC if necessary. Varavour (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Xinhua? – Sca (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Reuters attributes this report to Ethiopia’s state-appointed human rights commission. – Sca (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Has this been independently verified by any reputable independent source? There seems no evidence other than the say-so of a single body sponsored by the Ethiopian state. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:39, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the EHRC report provides detail to what was first reported by Amnesty International. --Varavour (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Tigray is already on ongoing and we are not going to post every single update related to that on ITN (just like we did not for Nagorno Karabakh) and clearly not give air to state-sponsored reports of massacres. (On a side note I wouldn't cite Xinhua even in noms). Gotitbro (talk) 21:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking oppose for now. If the Amnesty report cited above is independent of the EHRC and is reported on separately then I think this demands attention, but the blurb needs to be updated to reflect that. Gotitbro (talk) 21:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am tilting towards support but both the blurbs don't do justice. The first makes it seems as if only the EHRC has verified the massacre and the second takes the EHRC's 600 number at face value (Amnesty does not confirm them and gives vague estimates). Need a better blurb to judge this. Gotitbro (talk) 05:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support despite being on ongoing, a massacre of 600+ people demands attention. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 21:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support it's "stale" but I guess we just found out about it and the article is much better than the rubbish currently featured in ongoing --LaserLegs (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support A massacre of 600 people aimed at ethnic cleansing is not something that we see frequently. Despite the conflict being already posted to ongoing, this is an event that merits a blurb on its own.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well it has been reported by the Xinhua (even though Sca has removed that link) so it isn't just NATOist atrocity propaganda, although the involvement of amnesty international is concerning. Support on notability, though I'd love to references to organizations that are not paid off by Washingtonian think-tanks that certify the measure of 600+ deahts as plausible CoronaOneLove (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I did not remove the link – I merely questioned the reliability of state-owned Xinhua as a source in the small-font note at the top of this page. – Sca (talk) 14:08, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Story has been mostly absent from primary Eng.-lang. RS sites. However, today Reuters says "African envoys" headed for Ethiopia to investigate. – Sca (talk) 14:17, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Um what? Neither is Ethiopia/TPLF a member of or connected to the NATO nor is the Xinhua report critical of the Ethiopian government (attributed to the TPLF and China enjoys rather good relations with Ethiopia which is why Xinhua was being opposed/subsequently removed). Gotitbro (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's trying to say that it could be agitprop for NATO to intervene in Ethiopia. They're already right next door. In any case he negated his own point.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This happened over two weeks ago. Could have supported a nom for it then, but if you consider ITN this would have aged off the list by now. And this is already part of "ongoing". Albertaont (talk) 02:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support news: massacre. Also the blurbs are fine.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:21, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, sadly. The motivating factor for our posting this seems to be the declaration by members of Ethiopia's government. This was in the news 12-14 November, from Amnesty and other international groups. I would have strongly supported then, regardless of whether it was in Ongoing or not. As it is, it is stale, and the declarations by political figures are covered by Ongoing.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The further announcement by the government has only lead to more recent coverage than the initial reports by other organizations. Gotitbro (talk) 06:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support even though late, still a major disaster resulting in the deaths of hundreds. The fact that it's late doesn't really mean anything, as these things often take a while to be reported on. Gex4pls (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment wondering what is holding this news back. Two other news, one about baseball and one on a new political leader, in my opinion are less important news than this. Then a third "news" which is really an RD on surprise yawn surprise football. This news on a massacre is important.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:51, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Independent confirmation remains dubious. No longer in the RS news. – Sca (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Former mayor of New York City. 173.50.80.42 (talk) 05:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: Article seems to be in pretty good shape. I've made a couple minor fixes and added a missing reference; others may see more to clean up or fill in, but it looks to me like it's good enough quality to post this now. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality on a couple of uncited paragraphs (not to mention no prose update for his death). Also no blurb for this one, although Giuliani might warrant one when the time comes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just added a prose section on his death, also mentioning his wife's death just last month. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:41, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Kudzu1: There's an uncited paragraph in "Mayoralty", some uncited stuff in "A 2009 lookback", and one uncited paragraph in "Personal life", otherwise it looks good. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:18, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks fine and a good, interesting nom. Some dangling sentences but those just require ref re-arrangements rather than being a case of missing refs. Gotitbro (talk) 05:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support concerns now look addressed JW 1961 Talk 14:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support should be all sourced. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good now Jgreyes (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --Jayron32 19:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - a couple of cites still needed.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose citations needed in BLP. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:06, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment marking as attention needed. Either the cite issues need fixing, or it must be pulled.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Pulled pending citation issues. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John M Wolfson: Went in and added citations. Should be good now.~ Destroyeraa🌀 22:10, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @John M Wolfson: I caught one more CN tag. Looks ready. Dralwik|^{Have a Chat} 22:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 01:24, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: American basketball player and coach. Looks reasonable, I did some tidying up and referencing - Dumelow (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The lead needs a bit of expansion, it's just a single sentence at the moment. Eveyrthing else looks OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Amakuru, I've added a lead - Dumelow (talk) 12:38, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Good work, and thanks for fixing the issue above.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:37, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Former chief minister of Assam, India. Senior leader of a national party. ƬheStrikeΣagle 16:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now, needs lots of references added to be brought up to RD standards JW 1961 Talk 19:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing to Support Much improved article, ready for RD JW 1961 Talk 11:16, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Gave the article a comprehensive re-write. Citations are good. Content development is good. Passes the 'Spencer' test. @Joseywales1961:, please give it a read. Happy to make additional edits. Ktin (talk) 01:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Article is very much improved with the good work by Ktin. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:19, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is good to go to homepage / RD. Meets hygiene expectations. Ktin (talk) 05:36, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Ping. @Spencer, Stephen, Amakuru, Black Kite, and Dumelow: Pardon the intrusion. This page is ready for the homepage / RD. Please can you help with the posting. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 18:48, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --Jayron32 19:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Booker prize is an ITNR event. Do not recollect seeing a nomination here. The book page has been bolded, please feel free to change that. How are plot summaries sourced? I do not see any sourcing for plot summary in the book's page. Ktin (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Ktin Plot summaries do not need to be sourced as one can read the book to confirm the plot. 331dot (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  331dot, Makes sense. Thanks. With that the book seems well sourced. Ktin (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Though if there are third-party summaries RSes that can be sourced, it cannot hurt to include them. Further, if any interpretation/analysis of the plot is done, that must include sourcing from an RS to avoid the OR factor. --Masem (t) 14:44, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support While we can keep the nom here for visibility, this was announced Thursday and should be pegged there for roll-off purposes. At the moment, it would still be the top (most recent) item. GreatCaesarsGhost 14:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm pretty sure the article doesn't need two non-free images (they aren't the subject of any contextual commentary, so having two fails NFCC#3a and NFCC#8). I would suggest removing the US one. Black Kite (talk) 15:00, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  We generally use the cover of the first publication which would be the US version in this case. --Masem (t) 15:09, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Masem, Black Kite -- Done. Removed one of the images. Please feel free to revert / change if anything else is required there. Ktin (talk) 15:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, but needs appropriate italics in the blurb. —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:59, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Brigade Piron, Done. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:57, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting comment While the target article here is the novel, the article for the author needs work (is very stubby). Gotitbro (talk) 02:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Gotitbro, Edits and expansion done. Douglas Stuart article is now at the boundary of a start-class and C-class biography. Looks good imho. Ktin (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: ALS advocacy activist. Page created and updated. Shaped up to a clean C-class biography. Happy to build further if needed. Ktin (talk) 01:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment An article appears to have been started now but I am not sure about the notability of the subject for a separate article. Creator of a one-time social media phenomenon (Ice Bucket Challenge) but is he notable beyond just that. Gotitbro (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Gotitbro, I think the article should be good. The impact is more than a viral meme. Lots of good work has happened / has been enabled. Ktin (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As the sourced article exists I believe the notability is deemed established. Decently sourced and suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 14:48, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please can I request an additional pair of eyes on this one. The article looks clean and meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 18:47, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sourcing looks fine.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:50, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 23:06, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: English footballer (West Brom, Man United, Stoke) and manager (Doncaster). Can't do too much at the moment from my phone but I've added some missing citations and the rest looks OK - Dumelow (talk) 08:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well sourced, look good for RD JW 1961 Talk 14:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. Teemu08 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• SupportOppose on sourcing + content. Please have a re-look at the sources, many of the sources are web-forums / discussion boards. I have taken a pass at tagging a few of them. Also, there is no content in the main body on Maurice as a person (including mention of his death, outside of the lede), I know this has been asked for in a few RDs. Ktin (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait: Ktin is right. I missed that sourcing issue in my quick look earlier and this should not be posted until rectified. I’ll see if I can take a look at finding some better sources tomorrow. Thanks for spotting this - Dumelow (talk) 23:21, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ready?: Ktin, I've given it a bit of an overhaul, replaced that source and expanded a little. Hopefully it should now be ready - Dumelow (talk) 10:56, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work Dumelow. I struck my oppose vote. Looks good to go to homepage / RD. Any chance you can find something about his early life and add that? That will nicely round up the bio. Wow, I searched for that, absolutely nothing that I could find on a quick search. That said, this is good to go to homepage in its current state. Ktin (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks fine.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. RIP Maurice, a true Coventry City F.C. hero - this was before my time, but he was instrumental in keeping the club in the top flight in the late 1960s.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:25, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Scottish mountaineer. Articke looks OK - Dumelow (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Added a [CN] tag to the psych hospital-related content; article could use a tad more expansion about his career but I'm not opposed. Spencer^T•C 16:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The infobox on the RHS needs to be fixed. Ktin (talk) 19:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Hi Spencer. I'm a bit limited on time today but I've cited his illness and expanded a little on that and his film work. Ktin, per WP:Infobox, they are purely optional - Dumelow (talk) 20:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Dumelow, Added the infobox including a minorly cropped image. Did a round of edits. Article is well sourced. And, wow - the last paragraph was just too tragic to read. RIP. This is good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Expanded content. Clean B-class biography. Sources good. Good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 08:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 10:51, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Unfortunately, the carousel moved past too fast. RIP Mr. MacInnes. And, folks wanting to see something about the man - here goes. Ktin (talk) 01:06, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Former Mauritanian president. I am travelling at the moment and can only edit from my phone but I've done a basic update on his death and the rest of the article looks acceptable - Dumelow (talk) 07:55, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD. Thorough coverage of life; well-referenced. Spencer^T•C 16:52, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support in case someone gets all up-tight about a good call from a trusted admin about an article nominated by a trusted editor. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 23:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't have African leaders on the front-page you know. Gotitbro (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Royal dog. Article looks OK. Death reported 22 November - Dumelow (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in ok shape. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:12, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support decently referenced, suitable for RD JW 1961 Talk 14:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 18:29, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting support Interesting nom. Gotitbro (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Telugu language poet and journalist. Sahitya Akademi Award winner. Article has shaped up to a clean C-class biography. Will continue to expand. Done. Meets the hygiene requirements for homepage / RD in the current state. Ktin (talk) 00:46, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Slight support Well sourced, but there are a few areas where more could be used. There's also a line or two that are repeated. Gex4pls (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Consolidated a few refs. Looks good now. Appreciate an additional pair of eyes. Ktin (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ktin, Just needs a citation at "Andhra Pradesh government's Nandi film award", should be good to go after that, will support when ready (ping me) JW 1961 Talk 17:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Joseywales1961, Thanks a lot JW. I have updated with a citation / ref, and a wikilink to the award as well. Please have a look and let me know if I can make any additional edits. Ktin (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support decently referenced now looks ready for RD JW 1961 Talk 18:38, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 00:11, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Maltese renowned poet and writer. Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've added Citation Needed tags throughout, if these are fixed I would support JW 1961 Talk 00:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Citation needed tags need to be fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 10:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Full of unsourced statements, per above. Gex4pls (talk) 12:53, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose miles off. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated Joseywales1961, the CN's have been resolved. Should be good now. Joofjoof (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spencer, Stephen, Amakuru, Black Kite, and John M Wolfson: please take a look as well. Joofjoof (talk) 05:43, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Joofjoof, Very nice job on the sourcing! Looks good. Can you take a pass at the lede. Seems like that can be improved. With or without that change, I think this can go to homepage / RD, given that the window of opportunity is very limited and the carousel might move past any moment now. Ktin (talk) 07:26, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Great work Joofjoof, turning this from being "miles off" into a decent article. Please do have a look at expanding the lead, per Ktin comment above, but I won't hold it up on that score. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:32, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ktin and Amakuru: Thank you for your help! I have added to the lede section as well. Joofjoof (talk) 11:24, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Indian wildlife conservationist focusing on studying wild elephant behavior and human-wildlife conflicts. Article has shaped up to a good C-class biography. Meets homepage / RD requirements in the current state. Ktin (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Short article but not a stub, decently sourced JW 1961 Talk 00:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Written well and sourced well enough. Gex4pls (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Making ready. The article meets the hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 15:11, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Argentine banker. Saw the news on the Bloomberg ticker. Article is well referenced and seems alright and can benefit from a round of copy edits and checks for citations. I will do that once I am done for the day here. Ktin (talk) 00:56, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nicely tidied up today by Ktin, well referenced JW 1961 Talk 00:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks pretty good. Gotitbro (talk) 10:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Appreciate an additional pair of eyes. I think this might be good to go. Ktin (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted (I removed a sentence which seemed to duplicate detail and didn't seem well sourced before doing so). Black Kite (talk) 19:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Serbian Patriarch, spiritual leader of Eastern Orthodox Serbs. --DragonFederal (talk) 07:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good to me. Gotitbro (talk) 07:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I agree. Elserbio00 (talk) 08:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Bishop of Niš needs references. One is a broken link and the other one links to somewhere else. Actually, these two links are used in many places in the article, so fixing is needed. --Tone 09:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose two [citation needed] in there. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks ok now, posting. --Tone 10:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this was posted nearly 10 hours ago but two other nominations which were clearly ready are still waiting, why is this? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Jheald (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What's there looks reasonably well referenced, though could be expanded to discuss some of her best known works. Books need ISBNs. Jheald (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. I would very much like to be able to voice my support since Morris was a great writer, but at the moment the article has almost nothing about her work. Yakikaki (talk) 21:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks quite a bit better, not least thanks to Dumelow. Yakikaki (talk) 19:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Works can be expanded, though it is fine for an RD even without them in prose. But most of the bibliography is unsourced, @Jheald: please cite it. Otherwise an interesting bio that deserves an RD spot. Gotitbro (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support While I don't think it was necessary to spin-off the bib, the article does appear fine now. Gotitbro (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I've split off the bibliography to a separate page (it unbalanced the article anyway) and added some commentary on her works. It could use some expansion but I think it is now sufficient for RD. Jheald, Yakikaki & Gotitbro, perhaps you culd take anothe rlook? - Dumelow (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article has been improved. P-K3 (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Seems well referenced (I just added a few more sources). Funcrunch (talk) 18:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted—Bagumba (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Indian tribal activist and Santhali language litterateur. Padma Shri awardee. Expanded the article. Has shaped up to a nice C-class biography. Ready to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 07:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, looks good to me - Dumelow (talk) 10:08, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Please can I request an additional pair of eyes on this one? This looks all good for homepage / RD. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good to go. P-K3 (talk) 17:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Stephen, Spencer, Amakuru, Dumelow, and Jayron32:. Pardon the intrusion. This article is ready for your attention and move to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 22:38, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Russian academic, expert on the Tamil language. Article may be a little short but otherwise reasonable Dumelow (talk) 09:19, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support anyone good with images? There's a picture of him on the Russian Wikipedia article but it appears to have only been uploaded locally there rather than to Commons... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted, I've transferred it across using Commons Helper - Dumelow (talk) 10:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.Comment. Nice article. Clean Start class biography. @Dumelow:, I have added two ^{[citation needed]} and one ^[how?] tag. Please can you have them fixed. Article is good to go to homepage / RD post that fix. Ktin (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ktin, looks like someone removed the uncited material that was added - Dumelow (talk) 10:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dumelow: Looks good to go to homepage / RD. Nice nomination. Ktin (talk) 14:14, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good to go. P-K3 (talk) 17:42, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Stephen, Spencer, Amakuru, Dumelow, and Jayron32:. Pardon the intrusion. This article is ready for your attention and move to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 21:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Brief but meets minimum standards. Spencer^T•C 22:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Port Vale football forward. Article's a little on the short side but includes everything I could find. Date of death not reported but death announced on 19 November - Dumelow (talk) 08:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good enough. Bad day for Port Vale... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 10:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment has been good to go for about 12 hours now. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:25, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Meets minimum standards. Spencer^T•C 03:36, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: English goalkeeper for Port Vale and Macclesfield. I've tidied the article up a little but it was in reasonably good condition. Death date not found but was announced on 19 November - Dumelow (talk) 08:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Okay for an RD. Gotitbro (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment has been good to go for about 12 hours now. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. Brief but meets minimum standards. Spencer^T•C 03:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: I'm putting back the original nominator of this article who nominated a genuine article for ITN and the ITN nomination should not have been removed in the first place.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:08, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re-nominating per another user, a lot less pointy. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:14, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Target link is to a single, three-graph section of a longer article about Australia's involvement in the Afghanistan conflict, concerning events that occurred in 2012-2013. – Sca (talk) 17:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I am not terribly keen on the phrasing of the current blurb but I do think this is sufficiently significant for ITN. A major public scandal. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support actual news. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 20:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose if there are convictions yes, but otherwise this is just a report detailing an event many years ago. There is also no appropriate target article. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:D44C:1877:1CDC:DF0F (talk) 20:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment [13] --LaserLegs (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Relevant since major changes are occurring right now in AF, though yes convictions would be more convincing ITN material. Gotitbro (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Big news about a shameful, disgraceful crime.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 06:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Is it "in the news?" Yes. Mostly similar to LaserLegs source, thanks for pointing that out. Albertaont (talk) 07:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Issue lacks worldwide coverage. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not true, covered under international sections by most major newspapers around the world. Gotitbro (talk) 07:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid oppose in any case. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Dutch and French coverage which appeared on 19 November. It's not just an Anglophone story. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, article is a decent start that will surely be expanded. Literally reported on the other side of the world (I know the UK has close associations with Australia but I think this is a story with wider international interest) - Dumelow (talk) 08:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We can excuse shorter articles for an earthquake or terrorist incident that just happened. With so much time elapsed and data available, there is no reason for us to gloss over the paucity of this article. GreatCaesarsGhost 16:12, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it was briefly in the news but it's since more or less completely dropped off the front pages, which are still being dominated by the aftermath of the US election. Banedon (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  You miraculously countered you own point. The US elections may be dominating, but other news exists (indeed in the UK, the US election is most certainly last week's news). This is English language Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If we are going to post this it should be now, its fast running its ITN-time out. Gotitbro (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Spencer. Gotitbro (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no time pressure, if posted now it would still be the top item on the template, both this and Arecibo Observatory are 19 November stories - Dumelow (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not clear cut consensus at this point; willing to have the nomination run a little bit longer. Spencer^T•C 22:41, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The report is an alleged crime but does not represent anything actionable at this point - it would be expected this would lead to something towards convictions but until that happens, this is not really the type of thing we'd post. --Masem (t) 19:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Masem: Here. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 23:45, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I'd say that was a mistake to post as well. (And that there were opposed there along the same lines as here tells me I was not alone in that thought). --Masem (t) 00:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support & ready Listed my arguemnts for support in the previous nom that has since been removed by a severly biased editor. Also, the first oppose is outdated (the article's no longer linking to a 3 paragraph section of another article). The second oppose is made by an IP editor who has not done any other edits in wikipedia at all. The third oppose is both wrong (there is global worldwide coverage as shown by other editors) and is invalid (ITN noms don't require global worldwide coverage). In total, I counted 8 yays and 3 nays for nom. Pinging Spencer again. CoronaOneLove (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @CoronaOneLove: Yeah I am not sure completely removing the nomination initially was a good idea, removing the little statement would suffice. You could add yourself back in as nominator...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 05:59, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @CoronaOneLove: I don't mind. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:48, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Count of 8 yays and 3 nays is correct. The last 3 opposes are valid but there is consensus to post. Albertaont (talk) 21:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support given news coverage. Blythwood (talk) 03:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 13:26, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oi!!! Admins!!!! This was marked ready 27 hours ago!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And an admin weighed in - Spencer - indicating consensus does not exist to post. There are currently 7.5 or 8 supports to 6 oppositions. GreatCaesarsGhost 00:13, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted, referenced article, still in the news, Stephen 00:52, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-Post comment This article was nominated after Arecibo Observatory, also the damage to Arecibo Observatory and the announcement of the retirement happened before release of this report. If possible, please amend to the correct ordering? Albertaont (talk) 05:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Unusual event and the end of a major 57-year piece of equipment that had contributed to much of our understanding of space. Article needs a bit more updating to explain the events of last few days (second cable failure + decision of NSF in the body). Masem (t) 16:46, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While I've been able to update the article to the current event, the article quality still is lacking (sourcing, etc.) --Masem (t) 17:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality An interesting development, though quality issues are present. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 17:15, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose sad but oh well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support the section about the directors can just be removed. Damage section is in pretty good shape. The decommissioning makes it impossible to fire the goldeneye. --LaserLegs (talk) 20:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose nice trivia for a pub quiz, but nothing for the front page. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:D44C:1877:1CDC:DF0F (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on significance: Arecibo's impact on astronomy and physics has been huge. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support even if the article quality isn't perfect, the Arecibo Observatory is one of the most historically significant astronomical observatories on the planet, as the place the first planets beyond the Solar System were ever discovered, as well as the very first neutron stars, not to mention dozens of smaller historic discoveries. The definitive end of something that iconic certainly deserves a feature of its own. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pedantic point: the first neutron star to be discovered was PSR B1919+21 by Jocelyn Bell at the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory, not Arecibo. Modest Genius ^talk 13:52, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support behemoth of scientific research. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:18, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support significance, oppose on quality Sourcing issues are too significant to overlook. GreatCaesarsGhost 21:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I would support on significance alone but too many unsourced sections/paras for a burb. Gotitbro (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post posting support Nice to see some science related ITN after quite sometime which is clearly about an important topic. Gotitbro (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- though quality needs to be improved. -- Rockstone^{[Send me a message!]} 04:58, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle. 'Iconic' is an overused word, but Arecibo really is. It's not often that there's a definitive end for a telescope which is still at the forefront of its field. The article could do with a bit of tidying up, but it's not far off. Modest Genius ^talk 13:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Of incredible encyclopedic significance.--WaltCip-(talk) 16:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - significant event. Mjroots (talk) 17:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment easily up to the standard we would post now. Consensus in favour, good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 17:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've been working to clean up, and while I know there's probably more that can be improved, I feel its ready now compared to when I nom'ed this. --Masem (t) 17:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good work Masem, nice to see something with encyclopedic value being posted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 19:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Spencer^T•C 18:49, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Australia's first female finance minister. Died on the 11th but only made public today (refer Canberra Times article), not sure if this makes it "stale" or still okay to post. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support okay to post, article in good nick, good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:51, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support comprehensive and fully ref'd JennyOz (talk) 12:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I see a few ^{[citation needed]} tags on the article. Please fix them before moving to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 14:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Has enough sources, could always use a few more, but this one is fine enough. Gex4pls (talk) 15:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support notable. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If the announcement was now its not stale, and article looks pretty fine. Gotitbro (talk) 03:32, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the two footnotes have been [citation needed] tagged, perhaps if Ivar the Boneful or JackofOz could address those we can get this posted ASAP. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:57, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've fixed those up. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted - Dumelow (talk) 12:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: American businessman, owner of NY Waterway. I've expanded and tidied it up a bit - Dumelow (talk) 09:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 09:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 10:17, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It would be a good idea to expand the lead before posting. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Brigade Piron, I've expanded this - Dumelow (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted to RD. Spencer^T•C 17:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Holocaust survivor known as one of the leading figures in Holocaust education in Belgium. One of the few remaining survivors of Auschwitz concentration camp. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose at least two unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:45, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man:, happy to address them if you tell me what they are. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Already tagged. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:59, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @The Rambling Man: I've dealt with the single tag. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:02, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Support looks fine now. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well referenced, small article. KittenKlub (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• There's an unreferenced paragraph in there. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Don't want to but that single citation needed tag needs to go. @Brigade Piron: Please fix it. Gotitbro (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gotitbro, the tag relates to his having published an autobiography which is already cited in the following section and is already verifiable, so I have removed the tag I have fixed this anyway. I have also added another citation to the paragraph, Muboshgu. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:46, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "post-posting support". Gotitbro (talk) 10:05, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted, the missing citations that were the basis of the two opposes have been resolved - Dumelow (talk) 10:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: American billionaire real estate developer. I've expanded the article a bit and it looks in good shape - Dumelow (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support sufficient for RD. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - After review, ready for RD.BabbaQ (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 17:59, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:24, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Indian artist. Expanded the article. Well referenced. Has shaped up to be a clean C-class biography. Meets expectations for homepage / RD. RIP. For those wanting to see some of the paintings here and here. Ktin (talk) 05:39, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well sourced, small article. KittenKlub (talk) 09:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no way a fair use image can be used, she's literally only been dead days. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:25, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The Rambling Man, I went by what was done at Ben Cross back when the article was worked on here. But, that said, removing the image should be easy. Let me know. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 11:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, it shouldn't be there. It does not demonstrate that adequate and suitable effort has been put into finding a free alternative. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:12, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The Rambling Man, sounds good. Image has been removed. Ktin (talk) 11:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Support - agree with TRM. Fair use only applies if there's no prospect of finding a free alternative. But for someone who only died a few days ago, it could easily be possible to track down free alternatives with a bit of work.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Amakuru, thanks. Image has been removed. Couldn't find free alternatives, hence, went by the fair use discussion here. Ktin (talk) 11:21, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Ktin: OK thanks. To be honest, it might be better to try to get a definitive answer from experts on the project pages as to what's acceptable from this point of view, balancing the fact that she's still subject to WP:BLP, versus ease of obtaining images. I do find the whole fair-use guideline a bit confusing generally, because it's very unclear what it means to be able to source an alternative image. I guess the assumption is that you can always go to one of her events and take a snap of her, and I guess that's not possible now she's passed away. But there are other ways to get images. One approach would be to find every single image of her online, and approach each of the photographers to see if they'd agree to release the rights under Creative Commons licence. That might well yield fruit, but obviously could apply to any subject, dead or alive. Anyway, now that the image is no longer there, happy to support. Quality seems to be good enough. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk)

  Yes, exactly that, I've done that before successfully. Most people are prominent enough for there to be free photos available, you just have to do the work to find it before declaring fair use is the only alternative. As for Cross, I don't see any discussion saying the fair use image was just fine. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:37, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @The Rambling Man:, thanks, I do see your point. Yes, I did a good search prior to the fair use route. If someone has some cycles to help search, that would be much appreciated.

  Re: Cross, here's the link to the discussion. Might have to click expand on the collapsed green box to see the comments. With that said, I have removed the image as well, in parallel. Ktin (talk) 12:48, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Without a fair-use picture, support. As far as I know, images are not required for article to be on ITN...--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 12:22, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good now for RD JW 1961 Talk 14:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support FYI, The Rambling Man, images are not mandatory nor necessary for something to pass ITN. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Um, I know that, as after 14 years and a quarter of a million edits, I have picked up a few things. Cheers for your advice. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:30, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 22:20, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Bangladeshi politician. Could use a little expansion, but it'll probably be tomorrow before I can get around to it - Dumelow (talk) 19:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All looks well to me This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Source 1 might be considered an autobiography (and thus a primary source), because Ali was in charge of the organization that published it. It is also quite short given the breadth of material it supports in the article. Otherwise a good BLP.130.233.213.199 (talk) 12:24, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Sufficient for RD JW 1961 Talk 21:44, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support brief but hey, probably as good as it's going to get for the moment. G2G. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 22:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: St Mirren, Kilmarock, Southampton and Scotland goal keeper. Death announced 16 November. I've added missing refs and tidied the article up a bit - Dumelow (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Neat little article, I can't check the citebook references but everything else seems fine for RD JW 1961 Talk 22:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all referenced. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment been good to go for 12 hours now. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Syrian foreign minister and deputy PM. Article in reasonable shape - Dumelow (talk) 06:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is fine and interesting career. Gotitbro (talk) 15:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There is one dead link/404 error (ref 7 as of now) that I can't get IABOT to fix, would be better if that could be replaced JW 1961 Talk 17:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Joseywales1961, I found an archived version and fixed it- Dumelow (talk) 18:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article looks good for RD JW 1961 Talk 18:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Bagumba, thanks. Would have been good to go from the bottom of the stack to give other articles a chance. Ktin (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

 ArionEstar (talk) 09:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose a section tagged for expansion, the results only quote exit polls. And WP:LINKROT much? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality but support in principle. Empty section. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Per Rambling. Maintenance tags and refs required and too many ELs/non-formatted refs. Gotitbro (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose needs expansion, but would've supported it otherwise. --► Sincerely: SolaVirum 23:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• CommentThe non-formatted refs and expansion tags have been resolved. Can someone confirm whether this is sufficient? Joofjoof (talk) 01:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article is thorough and well-referenced, and gives a good synopsis of the candidates and issues of the election. Prose Results. I did not check against LINKROT, but if they have been addressed then this is as good an election article as I would expect.130.233.213.199 (talk) 12:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Seems ready. Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:15, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Looks complete, although I'm not a fan of the glitzy campaign signs. – Sca (talk) 13:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 14:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Brazilian football manager. I am working on fleshing out the article a bit - Dumelow (talk) 07:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support sufficient for RD. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well sourced little article JW 1961 Talk 17:47, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Lead should be a bit more than one sentence only saying he played and managed football.—Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Lead expanded. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 08:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Posted—Bagumba (talk) 08:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Australian basketball player. Article could perhaps use a little expansion but otherwise looks good - Dumelow (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support it's brief but what's there is okay. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:40, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Basics there.—Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment has been good to go for 12 hours. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 21:30, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:37, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Pending a last-minute abort, this manned, ITNR launch should occur in 80 mins from posting this. I am still posting this so people can take a look at the article for last-minute checks. 205.175.106.183 (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment What is "First operational manned flight" supposed to mean? First for SpaceX or is it some technical lingo? If its only unique for being a SpaceX manned flight, why so? Needs to be clarified in the blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - as I understand it, SpaceX made a test flight earlier this year, which just had dudes orbiting around for a while before coming down again, while this new one is a proper "mission", which will dock with the ISS. It would certainly need clarifying what that means, and I suspect just going with the shorter ALT blurb is better. The article's "Mission" section is currently lacking some references, so that will need fixing up before going live, and I suspect also a bit of prose on how the launch itself went, once that's known, would be good.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was coming in to nominate this myself. Agree that this is ITNR. Re: above comment from Amakuru -- almost that, the only edit is that the previous launch also docked at the ISS carrying astronauts Bob and Doug. The difference is that the previous launch was a test launch/mission and hence designated as 'demo'. The article should be updated with launch details. Would also recommend that the blurb be edited to mention the ISS as well.Ktin (talk) 00:29, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Cmnt it just launched. Previous one was a demo/test flight. This is a contracted, commercial flight. Alt has the non-verbose version. 205.175.106.183 (talk) 00:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment takeoff time seems to be unreferenced, and I'd wait for this to dock successfully if it was down to me, but ITNR probably just refers to the launch, so no complaints if, once the time is sourced, this being posted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 14:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Per TRM, but wait until docking. A milestone? – Sca (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I really don't understand why this one is notable. In the first mission, they launched and recovered 2 people from space, docked with ISS, did four EVAs, the mission wasn't exactly short like the 1st missions of US, Russia, and China "spent over 100 hours completing science experiments, while traveling 27 million miles over their 1024 orbits of the Earth". Hats-off to space-x for basically checking most of the boxes in one go the first time (which would have taken governments years...), for which we duly posted as ITN, but this time there is nothing noteworthy incremental that would justify second posting. Albertaont (talk) 14:33, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Albertaont: WP:ITN/R#Space exploration says that "the launch of crewed orbital spaceflights" qualifies automatically for ITN, so per usual convention we shouldn't be opposing this on notability grounds. If you think that condition for a recurring item is invalid, then you'll have to suggest a change at Wikipedia talk:In the news and gain consensus for that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • The rule is the rule, I guess the change will have to be suggested there. Albertaont (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support I would've thought that routine ISS launches wouldn't qualify for ITN, but I guess ITN/R says otherwise. We should discuss that at some point. Juxlos (talk) 15:13, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This does need to be revisited on ITNR. I thought this was unique being the first commercial mission et all, but that is not the case and that mission had been posted earlier sometime ago on ITN. Don't see the uniqueness of this at all. Gotitbro (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've argued for years that routine ISS crew rotation flights should not be ITNR. No-one has come up with a counter-argument, but the discussion always peters out without any changes the the listing. See the archives of WT:ITNR. Modest Genius ^talk 13:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Alt1. The other blurb was confusingly worded. --Jayron32 16:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please can we update the prose summaries (text) for round 4 and one round of sourcing for the tables (this should be simple). Once that is done, this article is good for homepage. Congrats to Dustin Johnson! Ktin (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - First player to get to twenty under at the Masters. Buried the competition by five strokes and didn't even know it til the end. Good night nurse! CoatCheck (talk) 03:25, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality - the "Field" section has gone back to the long and unwieldy format that we discussed earlier in the year as being non-optimal. Please see 2020 PGA Championship for an example of how this should look, after lots of good work was put into that one in getting it into shape. Also, quite a few cites needed throughout the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks Amakuru. @PCN02WPS, Johnsmith2116, and TheCorriynial: - please can one of you have the recommendation from Amakuru looked at. This one looks real close to making it to the homepage. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'll try to fix it to that, but a lot of the other Masters will need this treatment as well. Cites anyone can add. Most of the proboly needed info could be found on the Masters official website. TheCorriynial (talk) 23:20, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Kind of a follow-up to the mass political crisis devolving in Peru. Not too related to the Impeachment of Martín Vizcarra, since the resignation was a result of pressure from protestors. I'll keep on working on the article and the altblurbs. User:DoctorSpeed

• Comment Probably not ITN/R with no replacement yet, and the blurbs need work to be less tabloid-y. Kingsif (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Update the existing blurb for the impeachment, which is still on the main page. See Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#(Posted)_Peru_president_impeached. If the situation is chaotic and disputed then move it to ongoing. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Ongoing. It seems like this renders the previous blurb outdated, and we can expect further updates, so an ongoing seems best, until such time as a stable new leaders is promulgated.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support update to existing blurb. Does not support moving to Ongoing before it would have fallen off by age. No comment on whether it should go to Ongoing when it does. -- KTC (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The existing blurb hasn't "fallen off by age", it's fallen off because it's no longer true. The whole point of Ongoing is to cover stories that evolve constantly over a period of time, as this one now appears to be doing. We can't just keep bumping it back to the top of ITN every time there's a development.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and merge this blurb with existing blurb for now until successor has been confirmed, which this blurb can be revised. I don't have a problem to posted it as ongoing as long as information remains up to date and available. 36.68.195.164 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ongoing This is what that section is for, a lot of uncertainty and multiple updates. Gotitbro (talk) 23:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ongoing Wow, a lot of things are happening in Peru right now. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 02:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support either altblurb2 or ongoing. If we're going with a blurb update, I think it should mention the impeachment, the protests, and this resignation. Ongoing is good because the situation is so volatile. Davey2116 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb II Meets WP:ITNR's "Changes to the head of government". Remove old blurb about Vizcarra's removal if it's still on the Main Page.—Bagumba (talk) 08:27, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted, blurb II. I think it makes indeed sense to update the blurb instead of ongoing. --Tone 08:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: It would be very appreciated if someone could upload a free work of Mir. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Added a photo per Unnamelessness' request. Article looks well-sourced. Joofjoof (talk) 23:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess the image will have to wait. Thanks The Rambling Man for catching remaining CN's, and Unnamelessness for resolving them. Joofjoof (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - All cn tags are now resolved. Feel free to raise any issues. Unnamelessness (talk) 05:05, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Have we posted past MotoGP World Championships? —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Brigade Piron, Probably not, but from my point of view, the article is good to go. Unnamelessness (talk) 11:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I don't follow motorbike racing but I've seen this title win reported on the news a fair bit. It's a world championship, good for the person who won. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Mjroots (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support.5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Well-driven. Respect. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose will consider support breaking a relatively long-term record, but not equalling it. 2021 it is. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 12:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @The Rambling Man: - this is ITNR, which I didn't realise when nominating. Any objections on quality? Mjroots (talk) 13:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hamilton article is good, Mercedes less so, plenty of the early stuff unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've changed the entry to ITNR, and added an alternative blurb. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Saying "Lewis Hamilton crowns the 2020 Formula One World Championship" doesn't make grammatical sense. He has been crowned champion, he hasn't crowned the championship.
  5225_C (talk • contributions) 12:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done. Unnamelessness (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Blurb expanded per ITNR. Mjroots (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per ITNR. Grimes2 (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Shouldn't the blurb anchor be the 2020 Turkish Grand Prix since this is an ITNR nom? Please fix it. Gotitbro (talk) 13:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, see WP:ITN/R - Driver's and Constructor's Champions are the ITN/R items. Mjroots (talk) 13:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mjroots: Yes, but the event is usually what is bolded. Wouldn't it be 2020 Formula One World Championship?—Bagumba (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • @Bagumba: - I don't know, but would not object to a blurb that bolds Hamilton and the 2020 F1 WC. Please feel free to propose an altblurb. Mjroots (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless you remove the record from both the blurb and alt. It makes the blurb seem overly long and trivial. Support alt3. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have added a succinct blurb, linking to the actual championsihp article, as would be expected for the ITN/R entry. I've also mentioned that the win is record-equalling, which could be removed from the blurb if people feel strongly that that's not relevant.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's usually just the winners. For example the blurb for the 2020 NBA Finals didn't mention that the Lakers tied the league record for most championships.—Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but this is a significant achievement, and probably newsworthy in its own right, independent of the ITN/R rules. Although perhaps, as TRM says, we could hold off for next year if and when he breaks the record. I weakly support inclusion I guess.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Amakuru's Alt III with Hamilton also bolded is acceptable. To be clear, Hamilton's achievement is ITN-worthy in its own right, regardless of any ITNR considerations. The two can be combined. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Do you mean my ALT II? I have tweaked that so that Hamilton is also bolded, since he is seemingly the subject of the record equalling feat.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Alt II is acceptable. Mjroots (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt3 205.175.106.183 (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: no matter which blurb is posted, can we not post a photo with it? That Lewis Hamilton photo has been on the front page so many times. As an alternative, a picture of Lewis' car might be better (File:Lewis Hamilton 2020 Tuscan Grand Prix - race day.jpg).  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 00:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Marked as ready - no real opposition to posting. Suggest ALT II is used. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt 3 only. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 10:49, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted ALT 3. There is consensus for the short version of the blurb, which also conforms with ITN/R. Currently I don't see a consensus for including info about the record-equalling title, but discussion can continue and the hook expanded if the discussion develops.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:39, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Just to be clear on this, I've posted the minimal version here since consensus for that is clear. But per my above comment I would support alt 2 if there's consensus for that - just that at present I don't think there is... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Ongoing and apparent cause of previous concerns about Ethiopia, article in generally good nick Brandmeister^talk 10:15, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I edit-conflicted with you nominating this. I am not sure of my position on it yet but for the record this is the comment I had on my nomination: "with the recent Mai Kadra massacre and Asmara rocket attacks as well as accusations of war crimes from the UN, I think it is worth us discussing the merits of adding the conflict to ongoing" - Dumelow (talk) 10:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks fine. The most prominent armed conflict in news as of now (after the Nagorno Karabakh war ended). Gotitbro (talk) 12:30, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Includes bombing of Eritrean capital Asmara. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ethiopian civil war 2 question mark? CoronaOneLove (talk) 15:28, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This won't go away anytime soon. Albertaont (talk) 16:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality - certainly seems noteworthy enough, per above. But the structure and format of this article don'tlook great at the moment unfortunately. The actual conflict itself is reduced to a "timeline", which isn't really a substitute for proper prose summarising the event as a whole. And the lead is only two lines long at present. There's a "article undergoing restructuring" template at the top, so perhaps this is already being resolved, and in any case we should wait until said restructure is complete. As a final point, since we haven't posted this before, shouldn't it start with a proper blurb rather than going straight to Ongoing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amakuru (talk • contribs)
  • @Amakuru: The timeline structure of the article is probably disqualifying at FAC, but not for the Main Page IMO; I also don't think that a blurb is required prior to posting to Ongoing. I would post this right now but for the {{Under construction}} template on it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I was slightly surprised not to see this earlier. A major conflict with potentially massive implications in East Africa. The timeline format is currently fine for posting but I do agree that it might cease to be as the conflict develops and the list gets longer and longer. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the article is simply not ready to go on the front page. Impact is also unclear. I read potentially massive implications. Ok. Maybe. Too early too tell. We are not a newsticker and so we can wait until the situation becomes clear. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:104A:9C3F:31A:8C74 (talk) 06:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Too early to claim that it has implications? Plenty of reliable sources have addressed this exact aspect (BBC, Reuters among others). It's true that we aren't a news ticker, but if we don't post the outbreaks of large-scale conflicts we really need to ask why we have an ITN section at all. —Brigade Piron (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Davey2116 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Someone please have a look at the orange tag that calls for introduction expansion, otherwise I think this is more or less ready for ongoing. --Tone 09:45, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
•  Posted to ongoing; I have dealt with the lead problems. The latest update on this, however, is only two days younger than our oldest blurb, so perhaps that might be something to look out for and possibly discuss. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Indian Actor in Bengali films. Article requires some work in adding citations across sections and also removal of the yellow box. Nice work by Gotitbro. I think this article looks clean for RD. Ktin (talk) 08:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, lots of work needed. None of the publications are cited, most of the awards are uncited, passages of main text uncited, grammar needs an overhaul ("He acted more than 210 films in his career till 2016", " In Teen Bhubaner Pare (1969), he again shared the screen with the Tanuja, and his flamboyant and peppy way of romance" etc.) - Dumelow (talk) 10:33, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose reference issues, tone issues. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose For now. Mostly what Dumelow said. Gotitbro (talk) 12:54, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ktin: I have done some cleanup for the the lead (yellow box), refs and the issues raised above (publications). Please see if there are further issues with tone, otherwise it looks ready for RD. Gotitbro (talk) 03:46, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks fine now. Gotitbro (talk) 04:15, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as the nominator, thanks to the edits from Gotitbro and others. I did a round of copy edits, and I think it meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 04:09, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 22:39, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Article could do with a little work in some areas. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support top economic news this morning. The criticism section doesn't "need expansion". The article itself, lotta proseline. That table has no refs and doesn't really add anything it could go. --LaserLegs (talk) 11:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – important news, and the article seems to cover the key information. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:29, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The terms of the agreement are completely absent. Also, if you want to say "negotiations took 9 years and 27 meetings" that's fine. We don't need a proseline list of dates and locations of those meetings. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:04, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:GreatCaesarsGhost the terms of the agreement are not publicly available yet. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 15:11, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have no idea where and how you got the idea that the terms are "absent" or "not publicly available", as both Japan and Australia has published the full text of RCEP agreement, even including annexes. Also (even if it really were absent) I cannot see any connection between "terms absent" and an objection for ITN - would you please clarify your reasoning for that? --173.68.165.114 (talk) 22:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not sure about this. While significant not really sure what will come of this, a lot of media hype was created earlier but that has probably dampened due to the pandemic. I'd say wait for sometime and if its still being given prominent coverage internationally we can consider it. Gotitbro (talk) 12:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose And now oppose, thanks Masem for pointing this out, only an agreement for a pact no ratification as of yet. Gotitbro (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as this requires ratification by the member countries which could take two years. It is important (scope like formation of EU), but not yet assured. --Masem (t) 14:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Concerning the case of TPP, non-ractificationess didn't pose a successful objection (and of course, TPP was in ITN for a second time when it's ractified). I wonder if there's any change in ITN certeria during this five years. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 23:01, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Support Thanks 173.68.165.114 (talk · contribs) for convincing me. Cheers. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 16:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Front page coverage in almost all asian pacific countries, and it is still getting decent coverage even in North America. Albertaont (talk) 16:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ratification will almost certainly come piecemeal considering there are 13 countries involved, and I don't see any clear indication to assume it would not pass in all countries. Otherwise, this is by some measure the biggest trade bloc in the world and it takes up considerable attention in international news - some headlines, but definitely top of the economy section at least. Juxlos (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. This has already got plenty of global coverage. I'm intrigued by the suggestion that ratification is more important here than signing. Would we not have featured the United Nations Conference on International Organization simply because it was several months before Luxembourg ratified it? —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in itself historic, regardless if it is ratified or not. The scope of it is what is significant, and per Brigade Piron and per 173.68.165.114, it is deserving of ITN. Please reconsider Destroyeraa, Masem and GreatCaesarsGhost based off 173.68.165.114's comment and others. Thanks. 108.46.219.194 (talk) 01:18, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. Good reasoning. ~ Destroyeraa🌀 01:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • My objection was and remains the lack of any detail of what is in the agreement. As noted in the ABC article above "It will take time to fully assess exact details of the agreement encompassing tariff schedules and rules for all 15 countries involved — the tariffs schedule just for Japan is 1,334 pages long. It is not expected to go as far as the European Union in integrating member economies but does build on existing free trade arrangements." We need something like this in the article, preferably from a few different sources. GreatCaesarsGhost 03:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you! May I understand the objection this way: it is not the lack of detail but the lack of understanding of the detail. Since the agreement is too detailed and technical, it is almost impossible to overall catch the effect of those numbers, and the most practical way for most international analysts who do not have enough time and resources to input and simulating all these data into a supercomputer is simply wait and see what will happen. Correct me if my understanding of your objection is incorrect. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Btw I added a geographic based alt blurb, for I think many non-Asians may not be familiar with what ASEAN is. --173.68.165.114 (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose it might or might not be significant, but the article for sure is not even close to being ready for the front page. A tiny section on the actual provisions of the agreement, one sentence on the ex-ante impact, a bullet point list of negotiation dates, but almost nothing about what was negotiated. And nothing on the background, rationale, political economy. And btw, I also agree that it should be posted one it comes into effect, AFTER ratification. 2A02:A451:8B2D:1:104A:9C3F:31A:8C74 (talk) 06:22, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. Historic agreement. Davey2116 (talk) 08:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Masem. Until this is ratified, it is really just speculative. Particularly as, per GCG, we do'nt know the details to judge how significant it is. We should post as and when it is ratified and/or details show its importance. Also, per IP above, the quality needs improving before we would consider posting it.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  THe IP stated the entire agreement has been released. It'll take time to go through it, but an agreement this big and important should have a lot of journalists reading and commenting on it quickly. That said, there's already a good argument for waiting, and waiting should address the substance problems. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:21, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair enough, I agree with that. Once the detail that you mention is included, and assuming it doesn't turn out to be just some minor deal to reduce tariffs on paperclips or something, it could be good to go.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru: I'll just cite one of the permutations as an example, from a Nikkei source. Japan's trade with China ($350 billion) will see tariffs removed on c. 90% of products. Similar is true with South Korea-Japan ($100 billion or so). It basically is a free trade deal, minus a number of select commodities. Juxlos (talk) 15:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support why not? It's a huge deal encompassing 30% of the world's economy. Banedon (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If this isn't significant enough I don't know what economic news is. Bzweebl (talk • contribs) 19:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The short Contents section convinces me that this is not actually impactful. It's an incomplete tariff reduction. Confusingly, it is supposed to reduce red tape, but at the same time introduce rules of origin regulations. The section flatly says that the most salient subjects are not addressed in the agreement, and that it is not as comprehensive as previous treaties. It is not topline economic news in my corner of the world.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:06, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

---

Nominator's comments: Canadian First Nation chief. I'd like to do a bit more work on it, but it's getting there - Dumelow (talk) 09:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good enough. Ҥ (talk) 09:51, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 11:34, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks a clean C-class biography. Good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 15:57, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Bloom6132 (talk) 01:07, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Good. I can see any missing refs.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 07:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ҥ (talk) 09:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now unfortunately, as ever, it's the discography that falls down on referencing. It's not clear where I look to verify the label and "CD, Cassette" etc for the albums, and some refs e.g. the US County one in the chart performance seem to be dead. All else looks good though.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Updated dead links, refs added and removed singles and videos that there were no RS to verify (re Amakuru the labels and formats are under releases on allmusic sometimes it's a hover button) JW 1961 Talk 13:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's still an orange box at Doug Supernaw#Discography re: citations needed. It needs to be resolved (or removed if no longer relevant).—Bagumba (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Bagumba and Amakuru: tag removed; discography refs resolved. —Bloom6132 (talk) 14:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment thanks for the updates, but there's still a few things that are unclear to me. Once these are resolved, I think it'll be good to go:
  1. The link for the US Country album chart positions, just points to https://www.billboard.com/charts/country-albums, which defaults to the chart as of this week. How am I supposed to translate that page into verifying the peak position for Supernaw's albums? It looks like a Paywall site, so I'm not sure what lies beneath, but it seems like explicit links verifying the peak positions would be better.
  2. Ditto for US country songs chart.
  3. The studio albums don't seem to have AllMusic links, so I can't verify the release date, label and formats for those.
  4. The cite links in the "Music videos" table seem to be broken - they all just redirect to the generic page https://www.youtube.com/user/cmtvideo/.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:14, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: re point #3, I've added an AllMusic ref to his album discography. For points #1 and 2, you could use the "Date Search" dropdown function that comes after "The week of …". That part is not behind a paywall. And explicit links to peak position charts were not required for the ITN noms of Jerry Jeff Walker and Johnny Bush just over a month ago. —Bloom6132 (talk) 16:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom6132: Having the reader query up to 52 weeks to find a given rank for one song is not exactly verifiable. For the US tracks, Reno (Doug Supernaw song) used https://www.billboard.com/music/Doug-Supernaw/chart-history/CSI, which had all of his ranked songs in one place. Not sure if that single-link equivalent exists for the Canadian charts. Otherwise, those individual song articles seem to have some relevant citations for the respective song.—Bagumba (talk) 17:03, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: the link you provided is already included in the article, so I've expanded its use into the Singles table. As for the Canadian charts, the ref from the Canadian government (Library and Archives Canada database) is the only reliable source that I know of. I can't say that about the other external links in the RPM article. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba and Amakuru: just added archive URLs to the "Music videos" table (addressing point #4). @Spencer and Stephen: I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost there! Still wondering how we verify those US Country chart numbers though... the 27, 48 and 42?  — Amakuru (talk) 12:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: done. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom6132: For the other Billboard charts for Supernaw, go to that link you already used at https://www.billboard.com/music/Doug-Supernaw/chart-history/CSI. Where it says "Hot Country Song" up top is a drop-down menu, where you can get to other charts specifically for him. For example, selecting "Top Country Albums" will bring you to https://www.billboard.com/music/doug-supernaw/chart-history/CLP, which you can use for the "US Country" column for the studio albums. All that's left is Canada. Perhaps others might say the article is mostly sourced and be OK? Other options are to move it to the talk page. Good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bagumba I thought ref 20 verifies the Canadian charts? That same government source for RPM was deemed acceptable in the RD nom Johnny Bush just over a month ago, because the URL was targeted for that specific artist (as opposed to linking to the general database for the reader to search). Surely it should be acceptable in this case, don't you think? —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloom6132: Sorry I dion't see that it was only for this artists. I'm probably not making a formal bolded !vote here, so people can interpret my comments how they want. It seems like all the sources are probably there among those 64 links. It's just a matter of clicking through each one until you get the one that's relevant. Correct? —Bagumba (talk) 13:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks generally good to me. Gotitbro (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Thanks Bloom6132 for the updates to referencing. Seems like we more or less got there in the end, hence I'm withdrawing my previous objections, albeit that the links and finding specific facts may be a bit convoluted in places, per Bagumba above! Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]