[Posted] Gabonese presidential election

Article: Gabonese presidential election, 2016 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Ali Bongo Ondimba (pictured) is re-elected President of Gabon. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ At least five people are killed in Libreville, Gabon, during protests against the re-election of President Ali Bongo Ondimba (pictured).
News source(s): Al Jazeera, BBC News, Reuters
Credits:

• Nominated by Fuebaey (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: Official results came out on Wednesday, protests have been occurring since then. Fuebaey (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I would support the alt blurb, but the article has not been sufficiently updated with information on said protests. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 02:20, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

suppory with controversy mentionLihaas (talk) 15:16, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted alt blurb. Spencer^T♦C 05:27, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Fossils suggest life on Earth appeared 4 billion years ago

 Count Iblis (talk) 21:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle but the Nature article (and, actually the BBC one linked above) say that the stromatalites are 3.7bn years old (still 200m years older than the previous record). It does suggest that life may be more than 4bn years old, but a better blurb would simply be to state that this is a record. Edit: Alt2 is fine. Black Kite (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: I'm working to improve coverage (see Isua Greenstone Belt#Discovery of early life) and think this is a very important find. It has long been known that life was older than 3.4-3.5 billion years old (age of previous oldest stromatolite fossils), but their discovery at 3.7 billion years ago, as authors write, strongly suggests life formed far earlier. -Darouet (talk) 22:41, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - that's a pretty big extension to the earliest life on Earth. Banedon (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 06:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Current blurb is too long and awkward. Change it to Oldest fossils, x mil yrs old, are found in Y, Greenland.

Yes, it's so much shorter when you use X and Y. PS. The fossils weren't discovered today. Stephen 08:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the current blurb is a bit awkward and the prefacing bit "Scientists announce that" doesn't really add anything. I would suggest: "Fossils from the Isua Greenstone Belt, Greenland, are found to be world's oldest, having formed about 3.7 billion years ago." Dragons flight (talk) 08:44, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good change, go for it. Stephen 09:03, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Black Kite (talk) 09:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Citing Nature and Astrobilogy, Life#Origin says the oldest physical traces of life from 3.7 billion years were already known back in 2013. So possibly this could be stale. Brandmeister^talk 11:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  A trace of life such as ^13C depleted graphite at 3.7b years is different to fully formed fossils at 3.7b years which would put the corresponding traces of life back to ~4b years. Stephen 11:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The current blurb does not explain the importance of the discovery. It is an evidence of oldest LIFE on earth. A common reader does not get fosil=life. I say add something ilke "fossil x yr old, evidence for first time life appeared on Earth. Nergaal (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggestion Change the middle part to "are found to be the oldest traces of life on earth"? Black Kite (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  That's problematic. These are the oldest recognized fossils, but there controversial claims that various chemical signatures in older rocks provide traces from even earlier life, e.g. [1] at 4.1 Ga. Dragons flight (talk) 19:29, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - there should be a standalone article for that though. Someone should probably create it with the content from the #Discovery of early life section. --Fixuture (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Dilma Rousseff removed as President of Brazil

Articles: Dilma Rousseff (talk · history · tag) and Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff is removed from office as a result of impeachment proceedings against her. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The Senate of Brazil removes Dilma Rousseff as President of Brazil.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Michel Temer becomes President of Brazil after the Senate removes Dilma Rousseff from office.
Alternative blurb III: ​ Michel Temer becomes President of Brazil after the Senate removes Dilma Rousseff from office. Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela severs relations with Brazil.
News source(s): BBC, Hindustan Times, New York Times
Credits:

• Nominated by Allen3 (talk · give credit)

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

 -- Allen3 ^talk 17:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - We already posted this in May.--WaltCip (talk) 17:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
•  Note Then in May, President Dilma was suspended, now in August she has been impeached. Rousseff is no longer President of Brazil and she is unable to receive an expresident pension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.101.57.231 (talk) 18:11, August 31, 2016‎
• Support. The prior posting was her mere suspension from office; this is the final decision to remove her from office. I think the blurb should indicate that the Acting President/Vice President will finish her term. This is ITNR as a change in head of state. 331dot (talk) 18:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, this is a big decision affecting a head of state. --Tone 18:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the difference is between an indictment, WalCip and a conviction. We maybe shouldent have posted the impeachment, But Brazil is a major world country. The removal from office and stripping of rights and pension are the more important story. The Rousseff article is in good shape, I haven't looked at the impeachment article. μηδείς (talk) 18:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• According to WP:ITNR, it is the succession of a head of state that qualifies for ITNR, not simply a change. As such, the blurb should focus on Michel Temer becoming the new president. Added this as an alt-blurb. Mamyles (talk) 18:34, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a succession in head of state; I used 'change' in place of succession. In practice we generally post changes in head of state as such. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

•  Comment: Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela severed diplomatic relations with Brazil after the impeachment of Rousseff. 148.101.57.231 (talk) 19:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Diplomatic relations have not been "severed". Ecuador, Venezuela and El Salvador have recalled their ambassadors, with Bolivia threatening to do likewise.[2][3]. This represents a strong diplomatic protest but falls well short of complete cessation of diplomatic relations. --Allen3 ^talk 21:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose on quality. Support alt 2 once the Temer article is updated sufficiently and referenced appropriately. However, we cannot target Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff as it's sitting with a three-fold orange maintenance tag plastered across the top of it. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest that we follow Mamyles' suggestion, and go with a blurb like Michel Temer (pictured) becomes president of Brazil after Dilma Rouseff is removed from office. Frankly, I don't see the horribly written impeachment process article being up to snuff before this is stale. μηδείς (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support & prefer alt 2. No comment on article quality. -- KTC (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but oppose any blurb that links to the appalling Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff. Black Kite (talk) 22:36, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support ALT2 per Mamyles. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:42, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support on principle; she's been the president of one of the world's largest countries, and I don't see any major problems with her article that would disqualify it from appearing here. No opinion on which hook is best, and no comment on the article about the impeachment. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt 2. Very major event. The blurb should indicate the succession, although it doesn't have to be focused on the Temer. Alt 3 is, as far as I know, not true yet. Banedon (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree Impeachment of Dilma Rousseff is not of the required standard. Unfortunately, neither is Michel Temer, which lacks numerous citations for quotations and similar. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Bolivia, Ecuador and Venezuela are all ruled by populist regimes, and none of them are world powers, not even regional powers. Their petty reactions have very little significance in the grand scheme of things of international diplomacy. Cambalachero (talk) 02:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted a version of the altblurb that doesn't link the impeachment article nor that of Temer. If either are sufficiently improved I'd expect a blurb update. Stephen 06:17, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I protest - If we post this then we need to mention the succession, as a new head-of-state taking office is part of ITNR.--WaltCip (talk) 12:31, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  As already noted above, the Temer article is insufficiently referenced. Your protest means nothing unless you were to improve the article to be appropriate for the main page. You'll notice that IMMEDIATELY before you posted you protest, Stephen stated EXACTLY that. --Jayron32 15:26, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  It's just that in my opinion, we either post both stories or not post any at all, if there's a quality issue. Only posting the impeachment gives the implication that there currently is no successor, and that's not true.--WaltCip (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Věra Čáslavská

Nominator's comments: Would easily pass under old RD criteria as well. Update is there, but some more work would be nice. Brandmeister^talk 13:38, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comment. Fascinating article, but it does still need some improvement to the referencing. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Referencing has been improved now and there are no citation tags. Brandmeister^talk 19:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Agree with The Rambling Man that a reference for the perfect scores would be preferable, but I don't think it should hold up posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support just one cn I added regarding the two perfect scores which could use an inline reference as it's such an achievement. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted after citing that last fact. Stephen 06:53, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Radio signal from 95-ly away

[Closed] Uzbek president dead

[Posted RD] RD: Gene Wilder

Nominator's comments: Blurb? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Beaten to the nom support. Mjroots (talk) 19:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Likwise! Support for RD, but not blurb. Article is GA so fine for RD. --Bcp67 (talk) 19:40, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, obviously. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Support, per nom. Erick (talk) 19:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom Palmtree5551 (talk) 19:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Straight forward one. Miyagawa (talk) 19:58, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support RD, neutral blurb Article is good quality, he was a very iconic actor but I'm not sure if he reached Bowie's level. EternalNomad (talk) 20:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted RD; blurb discussion can continue, but no reason to keep it off RD while that discussion happens (if needed; no one seems to strongly favor a blurb). Yes, I know there wasn't much time between nom and posting, and GA doesn't automatically mean good enough to post. But unanimous support, no ((cn))s, comprehensive sourcing, comprehensive article, and no reason I can see to wait. We don't always get to post things in a timely way due to quality issues; when there are no quality issues, it's nice to be able to post a highly informative article to the main page quickly. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:19, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting preference of RD - Doesn't quite rise to the notability level of, say, Christopher Lee.--WaltCip (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting pref for RD one of my all-time most favouritist actors ever. Awesome with Pryor in just about every movie they ever made, and made Wonka so untouchable that Depp frankly looked an idiot trying to get close. But still not blurb-worthy. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I do agree at this point that it shouldn't be a blurb. When I nominated this, I wasn't sure how it would play as I was only reading the breaking news. RD is fine. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• post-posting support for speed of posting - unanimous support from 7 editors to post a GA quality recent death where the death is reliably sourced. This is one of the occasions that justify not having a mandatory minimum time between nomination and posting. Thryduulf (talk) 23:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed] Louisiana floods

Nominator's comments: The article itself says the floodings ended on 22 Aug. While relief and reconstruction may still take weeks/months, I think the most relevant part (state of emergency, loss of lives, destruction) is already gone. Cato censor (talk) 12:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, time to remove. --Tone 13:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed. Espresso Addict (talk) 13:45, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Juan Gabriel

 Erick (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Gabriel was prolific Mexican singer-songwriter whose death was confirmed by the LA coroner's office and the president of Mexico. Gabriel was honored an induction in the International Latin Music Hall of Fame, the Billboard Latin Music Hall of Fame, and named Latin Recording Academy Person of the Year in 2009. His album, Recuerdos, Vol. II is the bestselling album of all time in Mexico. In addition to singing, he also composed songs for other Latin artists such as Rocio Durcal, José José, and Isabel Pantoja. Erick (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - definitely notable. Article could use some work though.—Fundude99^{talk to me} 22:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I want to improve on the article, but there's so many edits coming, it makes it hard. I'll see what I can do at the least. Erick (talk) 22:58, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wikipedia en Español's main page has added his death to recent deaths.—Fundude99^{talk to me} 00:04, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, when ready. I cannot help with this right now, but in a few hours I will. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 23:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support per nom. – jona ✉ 23:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Strong relevance and article quality seems good enough. Cato censor (talk) 12:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support and in fact I would push for a blurb given the artistic significance of this person in Mexico.--WaltCip (talk) 14:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@WaltCip: I thought about that, but I wasn't sure how I would go doing it. Should I change the nomination or leave it as is? Erick (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posting. At a quick glance, I see no major issues with the article. --Tone 14:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Tone: WaltCip mentioned something about pushing for a blurb and was wondering if there is a chance for that? Erick (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, this is a clear RD case, so it was posted quickly. For a full blurb I'd have to see a broader discussion with a clear consensus. Let's see. --Tone 18:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, is there anything I should do like update the template or is it fine the way it is? Erick (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Post RD comment, can we revisit if Juan Gabriel meets the blurb criteria? It was pointed above. I knew he was relevant for Hispanic American countries, but after multiple searches for the update I've been doing, I have found that many of his songs were translated to multiple languages and with over 100K records sold he can be one of the best-selling music artists (he is not listed there because strangely there is a criteria of inclussion). Anyway, here are some sources I have found [4][5][6][7][8]. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] FARC ceasefire

 The Rambling Man (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Significance is obvious. Perhaps the blurb should mention that this follows the peace agreement that has just been signed. Neljack (talk) 05:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The "final, full and definitive accord" was agreed to on August 24, per the article, there's no mention there of separate ceasefire date. Stephen 06:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: this was nominated (but not posted) in June 2016 [9]. What has changed since then to make it worth posting now? Banedon (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. When this was last nominated, each side agreed with the concept of a ceasefire(where they could have later changed their minds). Now, it seems the particulars have been negotiated and put into effect. A final peace accord is being put to a vote by each side, which would be the next step, but this step is indeed notable. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Perhaps linking Colombian peace process would be better, since the currently linked article Colombian conflict contains a mere one-line update. MikeLynch (talk) 09:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Is this the main milestone of the peace process, will it be the 2 October referendum, will it be later after the referendum results are put into force? Cato censor (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted a slightly longer blurb for the 24 August date of agreement. Stephen 01:00, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivian Deputy Minister murdered

Nominator's comments: I think this murder is unusual and notable enough to be posted (as we did with Jo Cox), if we can get the article up to standard. EternalNomad (talk) 15:07, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - definitely notable. article could need some work though before posting.--BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – That Mr. Illanes was a deputy minister lessens notability. Article (225 words) contains little to augment notability. Sca (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Article is now essentially in shape. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 19:36, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support article is still a stub, has unreferenced claims, but the individual was certainly notable, more so than Jo Cox who we posted a few months back. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Third Bosphorus bridge

 Brandmeister^talk 11:46, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If this is posted I think the blurb should note that it's the tallest and broadest suspension bridge in the world, as that is (imho) more newsworthy than simply being the third bridge across a particular bit of water. There is at least one cn tag that needs addressing though. Thryduulf (talk) 11:50, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Added altblurb. Brandmeister^talk 13:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• support - definitely notable. article needs some work before posting.BabbaQ (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, it makes sense to highlight that it is the tallest. Ready to post when the issues with the article are resolved. --Tone 16:51, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented out the uncited sentence. Brandmeister^talk 17:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted, the superlatives in the article simply refer to suspension bridge so I left the cable-stayed modifier out. Stephen 23:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Edited It appears that the bridge is not the widest suspension bridge, hook edited, see ERRORS. Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it was sourced to the Washington Post. Stephen 01:34, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • It looks like it was a claim made by its architects that the WaPost repeated (about being the broadest). --MASEM (t) 01:55, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Dragonfly 44

[Posted] Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument

Article: Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Barack Obama expands the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument off the coast of Hawai'i, making it the largest national park on the planet. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ The United States quadruples the size of the Papahānaumokuākea Marine National Monument, making it the largest protected area in the world.
News source(s): (The Washington Post)
Credits:

• Nominated by Shhhhwwww!! (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: It is one of the largest parks in the world and now the crowning legacy of Obama. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 12:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I'm pretty sure the phrasing should be "largest marine reserve" or maybe "largest protected area" (depending on whether or not one chooses to count Antarctica). It's not a park, and marine reserves generally aren't described as such. Also, I don't think the suggested image is clear enough at this size to be useful. Dragons flight (talk) 12:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I don't see the blurb referenced in the article, I do see "It is one of the largest marine protected areas (MPAs) in the world" and that's it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Seems rather a bureaucratic move – something on his to-do list before leaving office. Sca (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support because why not? It's a major event involving the "best in class" for marine protected areas. I'm adding an alt blurb though, since the more accurate term appears to be "marine protected area". I removed the Barack Obama and Hawaii links as well, since they seem less relevant to the item. Banedon (talk) 01:27, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If posted, Obama should be left in the blurb, because he used his Antiquities Act authority to expand the monument on his own by executive order. 331dot (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Late Support with a slightly modified altblurb. The blurb is now reflected in the lede of the article, and this is now the largest protected area in the world, marine or not, National Park or not. It's the largest in it's (well-encompassing) class, and it's definitely in the news; a foreign, non-English speaking colleague mentioned it to me yesterday. I don't think Obama or whatever bureaucratic instrument needs to be mentioned in the blurb. The story is the park itself, and those other points can be found in the article for the interested reader.128.214.53.104 (talk) 07:55, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very fine article here that fully meets the ITN criteria. It would be nice to see this on the front page before it goes stale.128.214.53.104 (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 07:00, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Pegasus cyber warfare

[Posted] RD: Dame Margaret Anstee

Nominator's comments: UN diplomat. Article fully sourced. MurielMary (talk) 04:42, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support decent article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. One ((when?)) tag in the article but that's not a barrier and it's otherwise in good shape. Thryduulf (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support decent article. BabbaQ (talk) 12:05, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:43, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Rudy Van Gelder

Nominator's comments: Article looks pretty good, could use a few more sources and a pic (if possible) Challenger l (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose too many citations needed. Picture irrelevant, not going in as a blurb. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Sonia Rykiel

Nominator's comments: French fashion designer, known as the "Queen of Knitwear". Rykiel was also a writer. She received several French honours, including the Legion of Honor from two presidents. The article needs some work, as it's mostly unsourced. JuneGloom07 Talk 15:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I had a bit of a crack at this earlier, but it's nowhere near ready, poor grammar, bad English, mainly unreferenced, some updates needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I also had a look earlier, needs a lot of work to bring it up to main page standard. MurielMary (talk) 21:04, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change to support. Great work on improvements, nice to have an image of her work as well. Agree it's "ready". MurielMary (talk) 21:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• • I've rewritten and sourced everything, but the honors section. I could use some help with that, if anyone has a bit of spare time. - JuneGloom07 Talk 21:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Great work, JuneGloom, much improved. Almost ready! MurielMary (talk) 10:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the exception of two honours, everything is now sourced. User:Fuebaey did a great job helping out with that section. - JuneGloom07 Talk 20:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• support after improvements. Great.BabbaQ (talk) 21:05, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment vastly improved, good work, ready to go. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:13, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 17:55, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Pulled] Fall of Qayyarah

Nominator's comments: An important town that is centre of a region containing large amounts of oil. In addition, its capture is strategically important as it cuts off routes between ISIL-controlled Nineveh Governorate and ISIL-controlled Kirkuk Governorate. Newsboy39 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• For starters, we should have kept the ISIL conflict in Iraq posted in ongoing. Apart from that, if this can be confirmed, support as a significant occurrence in the war.--WaltCip (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have an appropriately updated article I can post in ongoing for you?--Jayron32 23:51, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jayron32 Were you asking me? Newsboy39 (talk) 00:12, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nope.--Jayron32 02:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks pretty obvious to me. Banedon (talk) 00:42, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Wait - not convinced by the importance. Is there any objective measure of the town's importance? e.g. population or oil production numbers? HaEr48 (talk) 04:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: HaEr48 The oil fields of Qayyarah produces 8,000 barrels of oil per day according to Oil production and smuggling in ISIL and the region contains over 800 million barrels of oil reserves according to Qayyarah subdistrict. Newsboy39 (talk) 09:45, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted No substantive objections on quality, and I checked myself and it looks fine. --Jayron32 18:00, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting oppose. The town is very small, and the article on it was created in May 2016. I question the strategic importance of this move and note that it is mostly Iraqi goverment officials crowing about it. (Primary sources, in other words). Furthermore, the entry of Turkish forces into the major town of Jarabulus seems to me to be more worthy of inclusion on ITN. Abductive (reasoning) 06:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose this is the 3rd capture posted on ITNR in the past few months. Nergaal (talk) 08:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and pull. Abductive has it spot on. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as well. I don't see major western media reporting it (at the risk of being west-centric), and even Al Jazeera has a rather small article about it. I am not sure if it is of great importance to be on ITN. MikeLynch (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and pull only a strategic step on the way to Mosul. Stephen 09:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose and pull Not of major relevance nor widely covered in the media. As Abductive said, the capture of Jarabulus (see below) is the recent major event to be promoted ITN. --PanchoS (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Pulled. Clearly a consensus against this being on the main page. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Posting - OTHERSTUFFEXIST is irrelevant really. BabbaQ (talk) 12:07, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Nobody argued WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, they argued "not relevant", "not covered in the news", "not significant". The Rambling Man (talk) 21:35, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Iraqi Defence Minister impeached

Closed as nomination withdrawn with no supporting !votes. -Ad Orientem (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Article: Khaled al-Obaidi (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Defence Minister of Iraq Khaled al-Obaidi is impeached in a no-confidence vote (Post)
News source(s): Haaretz, Stratfor
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Newsboy39 (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: The post of Defence Minister is an important one and Khaled al-Obaidi is the first defence minister to be impeached since fall of Saddam's government. His impeachment assumed even more signifance as Iraqi forces are preparing to assault Mosul in order to take it back from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. Newsboy39 (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. We don't often post articles about government officials below the head-of-state level, and I don't see this case as being significant enough to warrant an exception. Also, the article leaves a lot to be desired. At present, it does not explain what he has done as Defense Minister or what led him to be sacked. Dragons flight (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Pretty much per Dragons flight. Article is a stub and would need expanding. The article update on this story literally is "became minister in 2014 and 22 months later was voted out". Firstly, what did he [not] do during that time that made him significant? I'm guessing that shouldn't be in short supply given the amount of violence currently occurring in Iraq. Secondly, what led up to his removal? There's a brief mention of corruption, but there's no context to it. Fuebaey (talk) 16:59, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawal of submission by author: I agree with some of the objections raised by others. I'll try to improve the artice though I'm not sure if I will be able to. Therefore I think it is better to withdraw this. I request the administrators to please close this request. Newsboy39 (talk) 18:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Closed] RD: Michel Butor

[Posted] Proxima Centauri b

Article: Proxima Centauri b (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The exoplanet Proxima Centauri b is discovered in the habitable zone around Proxima Centauri, the star closest to the Sun. (Post)
News source(s): Nature BBC The Economist NY Times
Credits:

• Nominated by Sandstein (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: Astronomical discovery of historical significance.  Sandstein  17:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article suffers from some referencing problems, which is a quality issue. Would need to remove those cn issues. A high proportion of factual information, which should be referencable, lacks cites. Fix that and I'd support. --Jayron32 18:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Jayron32: It looks like the sourcing has now been substantially improved. Also currently on the front page of most mainstream media websites.  Sandstein  20:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Support per recent growth and improvements in citations. --Jayron32 23:35, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is a prominent discovery, since the planet orbits not only the nearest star to the solar system, but has properties similar to Earth, and orbits within the habitable zone. The quality of the article is sufficient now. Facts are sourced either in the prose or in the infobox, usually not both. Gap9551 (talk) 20:31, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Now. I don't know if this is bigger than Sputnik, but it's probably the biggest news you've had a chance to feature. And the editors have even put in the work to build the article already! That's a bonus, not a requirement, when it's something like this. Knock off something from your lugubrious litany of pointless deaths and put this up now. Wnt (talk) 20:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: The nature of the discovery is very important (and probably historic). The article contains sufficient info about the topic and well sourced. HaEr48 (talk) 21:01, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: This is a major discovery. I think the article is sufficiently developed and will continue to improve. -Darouet (talk) 21:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: This is like the mythical cure for cancer alluded to in the guidelines, and should be posted now regardless of article quality. Banedon (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I could write some bullshit in an article about a cure for cancer; if it isn't properly cited, how do you know the information is trustworthy? Should we post hoaxes merely because they are interesting hoaxes? --Jayron32 23:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Because I've seen the non-Wikipedia RS. Unless you are alleging a multiple-RS conspiracy to fool Wikipedia, the basic idea that there is a planet around our closest star is trustworthy. If you think the "cure for cancer" line should not be in the guidelines, feel free to remove it. Banedon (talk) 23:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Good for you. How does it serve the readers if you've seen the sources, and refuse to add them to the article? --Jayron32 01:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  And how does it serve our readers that you spend time trashtalking me instead of improving the article yourself? Sheesh. Banedon (talk) 01:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  You said you had access to sources and stated you wanted others to post this article though you didn't want to put them in the article. I have no particular interest one way or the other. You care, and you have the ability to fix the problem. That's why you should fix it. --Jayron32 08:32, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not particularly interested in talking to you about this topic anymore. As of time of writing, I have 9 edits to that article. You have zero. The end. Banedon (talk) 08:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  The discovery of the planet itself was properly sourced from the start, but some factual details were not, and some were later shown to be incorrect and fixed. Gap9551 (talk) 23:49, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  (e/c) You are totally right, and your initial oppose was fully appropriate. We should never showcase insufficiently sourced articles. If the topic is very important, it will attract editors, and the article quality will improve soon enough anyway. Gap9551 (talk) 23:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. I haven't used the image as it is only an artists' impression; but if someone else thinks the existing image should be replaced with this one feel free to do it. Black Kite (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I applaud the restraint of our editors in not giving into the sensationalism that the media usually suffers from with regards to space news. It's enough to say that this planet is in the "habitable zone" and not use buzzterms like "earth-like" or "might sustain intelligent life".--WaltCip (talk) 12:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Walter Scheel

[Posted] Earthquake in central Italy

Nominator's comments: unfolding event; suggest adding blurb later as story develops MurielMary (talk) 09:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support once we've expanded beyond the decent stub. One more para should do as we get more information. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support without expansion. The article looks good. - 2A02:2F0B:B0B6:C600:7D8C:124E:8321:15DA (talk) 09:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - The confirmed death toll has now risen to 37. (BBC) AlexTiefling (talk) 09:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Expansion would be good (obviously) but I don't think it's required. Thryduulf (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think the blurb should be modified to: At least 37 people are killed as an earthquake of magnitude 6.2 strikes central Italy. MikeLynch (talk) 10:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Done. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted. MikeLynch (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Fall of Jarabulus

Nominator's comments: The town was important as it was the only border crossing left under ISIL control from where they smuggled fighters and equipment. Newsboy39 (talk) 19:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with the other nomination into one blurb. Banedon (talk) 05:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The incursion of Turkey, backed by the U.S. and largely tolerated by Russia and the Assad regime, has been widely considered a major turning point in the balance of powers in Northern Syria. Though anticipated for months, Turkish tanks in Syria mark a new chapter of Turkish involvement. --PanchoS (talk) 17:27, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, ongoing is enough. Nergaal (talk) 22:38, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Nergaal: Please note that we don't have the Syrian Civil War listed as an ongoing event anymore. Anyway, this would stand out as a major game-changing event, rather than the usual routine news. --PanchoS (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this or put something in ongoing. Abductive (reasoning) 02:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Turkey sent massive forces into another (de iure) sovereign country. This needs to be on ITN. --bender235 (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support- major event.BabbaQ (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Significant event for foreign involvement in Syria, similar to when Russia started conducting bombings. HaEr48 (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted, while changing the attackers, given the mass tags at the top of Syrian opposition Stephen 23:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Morihiko Hiramatsu

Nominator's comments: He died on 21 August but death was announced on 23 August. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:08, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - very brief, not well organised (the information about other country's programmes isn't together with his project in Japan which they are supposedly modelled on), some unclear statements (what is the relevance of the statement about the Asia Pacific University??) And why did he get an award for being a friend of China - there's nothing in the article to suggest he did anything with China? MurielMary (talk) 09:44, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved them now. Please check. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:22, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Sea Shepherd

[Posted] RD: Esther Jungreis

Nominator's comments: Brief but well sourced article on a Jewish speaker/writer. MurielMary (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The "writings" section is completely unsourced, and the "Awards, recognition" section is sourced almost entirely to a dead link. Thryduulf (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Second of those fixed thanks to the Wayback Machine. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Added citations to the "writings" section. MurielMary (talk) 10:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagging "attention needed" for further assessment/comment. MurielMary (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support article is okay, improved from first viewing, nothing special but no major omissions. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted, on the short side but reasonably referenced. Stephen 23:17, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RD: Steven Hill

Nominator's comments: Well known actor for roles in Mission Impossible and as DA Adam Schiff in Law and Order. Article appears to be in generally good shape though a couple of paragraphs need sources. I will work on that directly. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 18:30, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - there are a few sentences without inline citations but I am confident these can be cleaned up in due course. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on improvements - there are a couple of places where more citations are needed, once that is done, it looks solid. Challenger l (talk) 23:08, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too many outstanding citations. I've tagged several places, but there are a few more long sentences/sequences of sentences with a single source that I would need to check whether are fully supported but I don't have time currently. Thryduulf (talk) 10:18, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose too many citations needed right now, and a whole heap of appearances which don't have references or even a Wikipedia article to back them up. Please also note I've removed a fair use image which had no rationale for inclusion in this article. Watch out for those... The Rambling Man (talk) 10:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: S. R. Nathan

Nominator's comments: Longest serving President of Singapore (1999 to 2011) starship.paint ~ KO 14:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I saw this earlier on Deaths in 2016. Glanced over it and saw several ((cn)) tags. I'll probably review it properly later. Fuebaey (talk) 14:40, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Went over it earlier, seems okay now. Fuebaey (talk) 20:52, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The referencing is not yet at the required standard. It doesn't seem to have improved since I last looked at it; is anyone working on it? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fuebaey and Espresso Addict: - looks improved to me, is it okay now? starship.paint ~ KO 02:58, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There are still whole unreferenced paragraphs. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:23, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose I'm still seeing a handful of unreferenced sentences. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Espresso Addict and The Rambling Man: - I've referenced what I could... starship.paint ~ KO 13:37, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have time to check this fully (wrong end of day), but the citation lacks I spotted earlier now seem covered. Good work. Espresso Addict (talk) 14:40, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted, sufficiently improved. Stephen 23:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Removed] 2016 Turkish purges

Nominator's comments: This event has been linked on ongoing since 26 July, and six days prior to that as a blurb after an unsuccessful coup attempt on 15 July. The last significant thing I read from this was an arrest warrant for footballer/soccer player Hakan Şükür ten days ago and the most recent addition to the article was a UN reaction a few days ago. Not enough in my opinion to sustain this event on ongoing. Fuebaey (talk) 14:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support It's fallen off the radar for most of the world's press/media. We can revisit the topic if something significant happens. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support removal it's all gone quiet over there, at least as far as global news goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed Stephen 23:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually is not uquiet with the new war on PKK and continued purges p[13]Lihaas (talk) 16:32, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but the requirement to be posted on Ongoing is frequent updates to the article (generally often enough as to outpace postings on ITN). The fact that the article history shows no major updates in well over a week, excepting a few incidental "politician makes statement" type updates, is why this was removed. If you'd like to see it remain in "ongoing" you'd need to keep updating the article with substantive information over several days, and demonstrate that it is continuously changing and the article is continuously updated. --Jayron32 18:27, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] RD: Toots Thielemans

Nominator's comments: Globally known harmonica player, played with all the greats. 131.251.254.154 (talk) 10:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose several whole paragraphs completely unreferenced. MurielMary (talk) 10:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Few references - most of the article is a bullet list - it feels very lacking in substance. Everything in order now. Kudos to the anon that cleaned it up - great work! Challenger l (talk) 03:36, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Strong Support – the article is improving, now having references throughout and a new section. Looks more substantial now. The person in question also seems highly notable, though I may be biased as I'm currently living in the Netherlands. I don't know how much international interest this person has. ~Mable (chat) 20:21, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Quite a bit in the jazz arena, ie. "Toots Thielemans - Live At The Hague Jazz Festival (2010)" --Light show (talk) 21:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article definitely meets standards now. ~Mable (chat) 22:32, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Updated and improved. --Light show (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your work, Light show! ---Sluzzelin talk 03:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• There isn't a single reference for his body of work, including all his appearances as a side man. Stephen 04:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added many to the Discography section. The Side man section has links going to their own articles, most of which seem to have his name included. --Light show (talk) 08:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. After the recent improvements. The harmonica player for the Sesame Street theme should be recognised. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:36, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment still at least two explicit citation needed tags. Thryduulf (talk) 10:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted improved sufficiently, and I added a couple of bare URLs for those cites that I'll fix up. Stephen 10:29, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted] Remove: Summer Olympics

Nominator's comments: Now that the games are officially over after the closing ceremony suggest removing from Ongoing. The tenses in the main article seem to be updated accordingly. Brandmeister^talk 08:54, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support removal no-brainer. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Switch to a blurb about the closing ceremony(once updated), which is ITNR. 331dot (talk) 09:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Removed from ongoing, added blurb. Feel free to improve it, this one is not particularly inspirational ... --Tone 11:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment while the closing ceremony is ITNR, I didn't see a clear consensus here that it was in a fit state to post. I'm not getting to prissy about it, but when some admins make such decisions, they're scrutinised and criticised. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the closing ceremonies article is in rather poor shape. The Olympics Ongoing going have been removed without having a replacement blurb in place and once this was up to spec as ITNR then we could have posted. --MASEM (t) 20:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Posted to RD] RD:Donald Henderson

Nominator's comments: Responsible for the smallpox eradication campaign, the first and to date only successful eradication of an infectious disease. Smallpox killed up to half a billion people in the 20th Century alone, before its eradication in the 1970s. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• A hugely important figure, I think actually a blurb is justified. This man saved more lives than possibly any other single doctor of our age. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)??[reply]
• Support RD and certainly tempted by a blurb. Per the nom, the individual was a legend of vaccinations, and has made a proper, long-term global impact, probably more so than Thatcher and Bowie. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD an exemplary life deserves a quality Wikipedia page, and quality would seem to be the case here. I would not oppose a blurb either if it comes to that. And if it does, then obviously we'd have to make sure any of the other targeted articles in the blurb pass muster, too. Christian Roess (talk) 22:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD. There are a couple of uncited awards but the article generally looks in good shape for posting. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, oppose blurb Article is good shape for RD posting but it lacks the quality of an FA that I would expect to elevate an unsurprising death by old age to a blurb. --MASEM (t) 23:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This person is notable for his life, not his death; Death of Donald Henderson isn't even a redirect. Proposing blurbs for people that would have passed muster under the previous Recent Deaths criteria because Recent Deaths isn't special enough for them anymore defeats the entire purpose of Recent Deaths. —Cryptic 03:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD Article in good shape - though a sad tragedy, the circumstances of his death do not seem particularly unusual or noteworthy. Challenger l (talk) 13:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD - good shape article..BabbaQ (talk) 14:07, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted to RD. There is one outstanding citation needed, but as this is just for one of many awards (and not a massively major one) I don't believe it should stand in the way of the clear consensus above. Thryduulf (talk) 14:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Brian Rix

[Posted] August 2016 Gaziantep bombing

 The Rambling Man (talk) 07:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now as the article is only a stub. Will support if/when article is long enough. Joseph2302 07:59, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support after expansion Right now it is a stub. --yousaf465' 08:06, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Only after expansion. Sherenk1 (talk) 09:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - unfortunately. I was going to celebrate the recent spate of science and technology articles, and relative dearth of disasters and attacks. Will have to hold off for now. (longtime editor; most of the recent !votes from China-based IPs are me.) 124.128.114.215 (talk) 11:57, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Updated Recheck and Post.--yousaf465' 13:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article's prose should be improved, and while International Reaction sections are discouraged, all elements must be sourced and there are several that are not. There is no rush to post if the quality is not there. --MASEM (t) 13:49, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All reaction are from 2-3 sources. Those have been fixed. --yousaf465' 14:33, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, pending more info, but half the current article is flag salad. Sca (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - It is a big accident in which marriage function is targeted. Nannadeem (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support Just about long enough now, and very notable event. Joseph2302 21:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - as far as terrorist attacks go, this looks quite major. Banedon (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 06:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] RD: Lilia Cuntapay

[Closed] RD: Ignacio Padilla

[Closed] RD: Lou Pearlman

[Closed] Duterte threatens to pull out of UN

Pretty much a WP:SNOW close. MikeLynch (talk) 21:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Article: Rodrigo Duterte (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Following criticism from United Nations human rights experts of increased extrajudicial killings of suspected drug dealers since his election victory, President Rodrigo Duterte threatens to take the Philippines out of the UN. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Following United Nations criticism of a spate of 900 extrajudicial killings of suspected drug dealers, President Rodrigo Duterte threatens to take the Philippines out of the UN.
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

• Nominated by Signedzzz (talk · give credit)

Nominator's comments: About 900 extrajudicial killings since May presidential election. zzz (talk) 10:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unless a substantive step is taken towards the Phillipines leaving the UN. I'm sure many notable figures around the world advocate leaving or threaten to leave the UN. Duterte's statement seems more like bluster than anything. 331dot (talk) 11:23, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose support if they do leave the UN. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per 331dot. Palmtree5551 (talk) 15:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, at this point this is just a political statement. --Soman (talk) 15:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per above. This is political posturing. If/when this actually happens I will support a blurb. -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

[Posted] RD: Jack Riley

Nominator's comments: Known for voicing Stu Pickles on Rugrats and for playing Elliot Carlin on The Bob Newhart Show. Andise1 (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose in current state. Article is a list of one-sentence statements. Not cohesive or easy to read. Also some odd statements like the last line of the first section "this radio show" - what does this refer to? And some tense issues to tidy up. MurielMary (talk) 09:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per MurielMary. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support looks good now, much better than when I saw it last night. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:42, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment still not brilliant, but not opposing, article much improved since I reviewed this morning. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 02:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as a standard short sourced bio and marked as ready. Pinging @MurielMary: as a courtesy, if they have any other objections or feel like changing their !vote. Fuebaey (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the "ping"; yes happy to support now, much improved. MurielMary (talk) 20:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 23:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Closed] Zika spreads from American to American for the first time