(Posted) RD: Phil Lombardi

Nominator's comments: Only reported today (May 30); died on May 20. —Bloom6132 (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support A little on the short side but looks sufficient. P-K3 (talk) 22:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's short but looks alright --Vacant0 (talk) 09:49, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Short, but fully cited and everything checks out. Uses x (talk • contribs) 18:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Amakuru, Bagumba, Black Kite, and PFHLai: I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Attention needed) RD: Jason Dupasquier

Nominator's comments: Swiss motorcycle rider who died after an accident at the Mugello Circuit of the Italian Grand Prix. The article is in decent shape. SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:44, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not overly familiar with sourcing on bike racing, but I do wonder if the racing section could be expanded upon somewhat. That being said, this is a tragic case of a young sportsperson who died very early in their career while competing in a world championship event, so I doubt the article would be likely to expand that far beyond its current size. Unless someone far more familiar with bike racing than I am raises major concerns about the sourcing here I would be prepared to provisionally support listing Dupasquier on the main page. Note: Grand Prix motorcycle racing is generally far more popular in Romance language countries than it is in the Anglosphere so that should be considered regarding the state of sourcing. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:12, 1 June 2021 (UTC)HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 05:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'd like for this to get posted, but I agree this needs expansion. The first section is essentially a list of championships he was involved in, and then it's just details about his death. Nothing else about him at all. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article is cited. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:49, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The lack of text on his career makes this look more like a death writeup than a biography.—Bagumba (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment HumanBodyPiloter5, Uses x and Bagumba. I, honestly, don't know how to improve it. He was only 19 years-old. His Moto3 career started only last year and, before dying, he hasn't had any major accomplishment at Moto3. He only scored 27 points with no wins, no podiums and no poles whatsoever. So, there's not much to talk about his career at Moto3. He succeeded only in minor championships. He was pretty young and a promising driver who will never have the chance to prove himself.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 21:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support He passes WP:NMOTORSPORT, but sadly died at a young age so there isn't much more to say beyond that. Everything there is to say appears to be there, however. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:03, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Patrick Sky

Nominator's comments: Only reported today (May 30); died on May 27. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Well-sourced.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:50, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Suppport Article looks good for a RD --Vacant0 (talk) 09:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait Under "Career" his relocation from New York City to Perryville isn't in any of the sources. All I can find ((from a PDF) not in the article) is a mention that he lived in Perryville in the '70s, but nothing saying he actually moved there from NYC or the reason. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:32, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Uses x: I've removed the unsourced statement. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support as that was the only problem in the article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 08:12, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Amakuru, Bagumba, Black Kite, and PFHLai: I think this may be ready to go. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:15, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: P. W. T. Simanjuntak

Nominator's comments: The antipope of the Batak Christian Protestant Church. Took over the church with the government's assistance and illegitimately led the church for six years. His leadership was disputed by S. A. E. Nababan, who died three weeks ago and was also posted here. Also a member of parliament for four years. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 06:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is well-referenced and good to go.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good and well-cited --Vacant0 (talk) 09:55, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article is in good shape and well-referenced. Hanamanteo (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indianapolis 500

Article: 2021 Indianapolis 500 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In motorsports, Hélio Castroneves (pictured) wins the Indianapolis 500 (Post)
News source(s): ESPN NPR
Credits:

• Nominated by Calidum (talk · give credit)

Article needs updating
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: The Indy 500 is listed on ITNR. The race article seems to be in OK shape, but lacks a text update. -- Calidum 01:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Commenting, will support inclusion upon updating of prose - Agree that the article needs some updates, but otherwise would be an uncontroversial inclusion as part of the triple crown. The fact that Hélio tied the record for most wins and the fact that this win came 20 years after his first may be relevant? I think the longest previous gap between first and last wins was only 16 years but I may be wrong. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 06:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow up comment - I have done some initial work adding sources and a brief prose summary. Hopefully the page will expand further as America wakes up and their papers go to press. HumanBodyPiloter5 (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Article has large swaths of unreferenced text and no prose update. It has long way to go before posting.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 06:35, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I updated the article 2021_Indianapolis_500#Finish. @Calidum:, @HumanBodyPiloter5:. Minerva (talk to me) 19:45, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose "2021 IndyCar Series" section is unsourced in this article, "Race Schedules" text doesn't seem to be sourced, and some unsourced text on Saturday qualifying. Also, lots of text throughout needs to be converted from future tense to past tense. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mythili Sivaraman

Nominator's comments: Indian social justice activist and trade union leader. Article should be ready for homepage / RD soon. Working on some edits. Edits done. Article has shaped into a decent C-class biography and meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Comprehensive enough, and the information in the English articles match the article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 06:29, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted Gwen) RD: Gwen Shamblin Lara/Joe Lara

Nominator's comments: This is an odd one - a private plane with seven people crashed into a lake, with all seven dead. It is very unlikely that the plane crash will have an article, but we have two notable people (these two, wife and husband, who owned the plane). I do not think either raises to a blurb (this isn't Kobe Byrant) but they both qualify for RD so maybe this could be a "Gwen Shamblin & Joe Lara" entry on RD? I dunno. Masem (t) 04:59, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Gwen Shamblin RD only as her article is the only one that's long enough, as well as almost being fully cited (just an unimportant TV appearance missing). Joe Lara's is a stub so it shouldn't be posted until it's RD quality. I don't think combining them would work as it takes up the same amount of space and it'd go against the RD format, so it's better to just split them. Uses x (talk • contribs) 09:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Gewn Shambiln RD only Looks good, there's one cn tag to fix. --Vacant0 (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Gwen only Gwen's article is clearly good enough, and ready for RD. Joe's article is barely more than a stub, with half the text focused on his death. Needs more information about his life. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Gwen Shamblin Lara. Work can continue on her husband.—Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RD: B. J. Thomas

Nominator's comments: Needs a little sourcing work before it is ready. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Not ready yet. Some sentences and paragraphs missing refs.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Gavin MacLeod

Nominator's comments: Needs just a little sourcing work and it will be ready. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Last lift to the Lido Deck.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CoatCheck (talk • contribs) 03:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - References have been added, unsourced material removed, and poor quality sources have been replaced with reliable sources.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks alright --Vacant0 (talk) 09:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Filmography missing Is it the new norm to split off an existing unsourced filmography to seemingly fast track an ITN nom? Is this in the reader's best interest?—Bagumba (talk) 11:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Aside from the filmography discussion, the first paragraph's first sentences are now tagged, as they were not supported by the lone citation at the end of that paragraph. I'm also wary of the large paragraph beginning "MacLeod's breakout role as Murray Slaughter ..." which also has only one citation at the end, itself a dead url.—Bagumba (talk) 11:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've struck my oppose based on eyeballing the updates.—Bagumba (talk) 05:48, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Splitting off a completely unsourced filmography to create a completely unsourced new article, purely to push an ITN nomination is not acceptable. It should be merged back and sourced. Black Kite (talk) 11:26, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Kudos to User:Serial Number 54129 for fixng the citations. Black Kite (talk) 22:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• 👍 The important thing, Black Kite, is that Tdl1060 receives no credit whatsoever for this item, due to their obvious gaming with disingenuous edit summaries, creating a completely unsourced article—and calling that merely "problematic"—and then moving the material back when all the work's been done for them under the guise of doing everyone else a favour. ——Serial 10:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serial Number 54129: it wasn't the filmography that they called "problematic". It was another paragraph that I flagged, which they did resolve and source.—Bagumba (talk) 16:15, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Obvious WP:GAMING attempt, to the detriment of readers. Put the filmography back. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Filmography has been merged back into the article and is fully sourced. Tagged unsourced content in first paragraph of career section has been sourced as well.--Tdl1060 (talk) 21:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - The paragraph that @Bagumba: raised as problematic has now been sourced as well. Article should be ready.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Issues appear to have been resolved.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now - some bits in the lead (including several actors he starred "opposite") are not cited in the body. Also there's an unattributed quote regarding his divorce. Will support once these fixed.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Amakuru: The lead has been reworded so not to include anything that is not sourced in the body, and the unattributed quote regarding his divorce has been removed.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Tdl1060: thanks for handling that. Contrary to what's written above, I think you've done good work on updating this article and I would assume good faith regarding the filmography, that you thought that would be a legitimate thing to do... Obviously now you know that it's frowned upon to do things like that to get an ITN! I'm therefore crediting you as an updater. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Way to enable Tdl1060's fucking gaming, Amakuru. ——Serial 10:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: I don't think there was any gaming going on. This isn't the first time I've seen editors simply remove uncited text from articles when that issue is raised at ITN/C, and I regard it as an innocent error made by newcomers to ITN rather than intentional deception. In this case, Tdl admitted their mistake when it was raised, immediately put the section back with appropriate citations, and then worked to resolve all the other issues that had been raised with the article. Bagumba also queried your account of their deception in reply to you above. Perhaps I'm being naive, but IMHO a little good faith on your part wouldn't go amiss here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added nearly 80 fucking citaions, without which you wouldn't have been able to post the fucking thing, and you're lecturing me about good faith? Bullshit. ——Serial 10:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'll credit you too then... I hadn't noticed your contributions on the split-then-merged-back page, that's obviously good work. But doesn't mean that Tdl's actions weren't themselves done in good faith. It's not like it makes a massive difference to anything, but things run smoother if we don't get at each other's throats all the time. Obviously if Tdl does something like this again, I'll think differently, but for now I think we should just move on.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't add their own name as an updater, and they don't seem to be involved in WP:WIKICUP or anything where one might be wary of an ulterior motive, so I'm inclined to think they had good intentions. They did made a lot of other contributions to the page after the filmography was restored.—Bagumba (talk) 10:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 02:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Munirathna Anandakrishnan

Nominator's comments: Former head of Anna University Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support There's one cn tag that has to get fixed, otherwise it looks suitable --Vacant0 (talk) 18:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 10:27, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Cornelius Sim

 Bloom6132 (talk) 21:56, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support looks a very decent little article, suitably referenced JW 1961 ^Talk 23:30, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – everything seems to be in order: solid referencing, no prose issues, a thorough overview of the topic. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support more than good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks great --Vacant0 (talk) 12:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) 2021 UEFA Champions League Final

Article: 2021 UEFA Champions League Final (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In association football, Chelsea F.C. defeat Manchester City F.C. to win the UEFA Champions League. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In association football, the UEFA Champions League concludes with Chelsea defeating Manchester City in the final.
Alternative blurb II: ​ In association football, the UEFA Champions League concludes with Chelsea (man of the match N'Golo Kanté pictured) defeating Manchester City in the final.
News source(s): ESPN
Credits:

• Nominated by PCN02WPS (talk · give credit)
• Created by Chanheigeorge (talk · give credit)
• Updated by S.A. Julio (talk · give credit) and The Rambling Man (talk · give credit)

Article updated
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.

 PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 20:59, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not sure I see a prose summary of the match. Added alt per house style. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Support a match summary is now there, and what an excellent and inspiring piece of work it is. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per lack of summary, uncited statements in several sections, and lack of a complete "Road to final" prose summary. It will need a ton of work to be ITN-ready. SounderBruce 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Meets the minimum standard of quality. STSC (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good to go. MSN12102001 (talk) 00:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose No prose summary of the match. P-K3 (talk) 00:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice one TRM! P-K3 (talk) 12:30, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support altblurb2 Proper summary with picture Sitaphul (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose no match summary. It's an article about a match, and we have almost no details on the match itself in the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I have added a summary. STSC (talk) 10:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I have added a real summary. Pawnkingthree, Joseph2302 perhaps you could re-consider your !vote? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 11:12, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please consider cropping the suggested image to remove corporate logos on the uniform in the proposed pic. Don't want to give free advertising on MainPage. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 11:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That image is tiny. I ran it just to see what it looks like: File:N'Golo Kanté profile.jpg. Same issue just a few weeks ago with Mark Selby, it makes an awkward crop. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Can we keep his shoulders? --PFHLai (talk) 11:50, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

   Done Here's a wider shot which is better, but still about 200 x 200 px, so IDK how it will look on MP. We also just put up the Assad blurb so there's definitely photos we can use there. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, AllegedlyHuman. I think this looks fine. --PFHLai (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (Altblutb2) Article much improved since last evening JW 1961 ^Talk 11:38, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 12:05, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Mark Eaton

Nominator's comments: NBA player, spent his 11 year career with the Utah Jazz. May need some sourcing work. KingOfAllThings ^{(thou shalt chatter!)} 19:00, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've updated it some, but referencing still needs a bit more work.—Bagumba (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Referencing now improved.—Bagumba (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Good to go.--SirEdimon ^Dimmi!!! 04:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Jehochman ^Talk 20:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Discovery of mass graves in Canada

Kamloops Indian Residential School circa 1930

Article: Kamloops Indian Residential School (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A mass grave containing the remains of 215 children is found on the grounds of the Kamloops Indian Residential School, which was a part of the Canadian Indian residential school system from 1893 to 1969. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A mass grave containing the remains of 215 children is found on the grounds of the Kamloops Indian Residential School, which was a part of the Canadian Indian residential school system from 1893 to 1969.
Alternative blurb II: ​ A mass grave containing the remains of 215 children is found at Kamloops Indian Residential School, part of the Canadian Indian residential school system in 1893-1969.
News source(s): NYT, CBC, The Washington Post, UPI, Reuters, BBC
Credits:

• Updated and nominated by Yeeno (talk · give credit)
• Updated by Dnllnd (talk · give credit) and Patar knight (talk · give credit)

Article updated

Nominator's comments: Major and uncommon discovery at what once was the largest residential school in Canada. Article was short, but recently expanded. Yeeno (talk) 🍁 00:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There's precedent to post this from when a similar thing was discovered with the Mother and Baby Homes in Ireland. This is, again, the result of a congregation part of the Catholic Church. However, that was only posted once the investigation was completed and the final report was made, and for this the articles make it clear these results are only "preliminary", so I think it's worth waiting for a similar report so we have a more comprehensive article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:52, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Seems the report you are looking for was Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. The general mistreatment in schools was already known; the bodies at this particular school is the new discovery. Perhaps the main target should be Canadian Indian residential school system, which has Canadian Indian residential school system#Missing children and unmarked graves, as that page already has the necessary background missing inthe specific school page.—Bagumba (talk) 05:08, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt per Bagumba. The target article in that has enough information regarding the update. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt blurb with FA Canadian Indian residential school system as the target. The actual school page is currently too underdeveloped to provide enough context on the bodies. Perfect opportunity to showcase FA related to news item.—Bagumba (talk) 05:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This is an interesting story documenting a major discovery. I also prefer the alternative blurb.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt per above Kingsif (talk) 09:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt nice article. Harrowing. Should it be in the grounds? ——Serial 10:42, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Culturally and historically significant. Prefer Alt2, offered above as a slightly less prolix choice. – Sca (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: – The blurry, horizontal pic. shown is subpar and doesn't really illustrate the story. – Sca (talk) 12:27, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think the cropped version with less of the ground works ok for tablets and laptops, and have posted it.—Bagumba (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 13:33, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Namibia Genocide

Nominator's comments: It's a lengthy article, but for such a long article it's actually fairly close to ITN quality. Hopefully this nomination and today's events will bring eyes to the article to get it fixed up. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Conditonal support The update needs to be much longer than the 1 line addition to the lead that isn't even expanded in the main text. Someone with knowledge about the genocide would also need to give the okay that the information is correct, as it mostly relies on book references so I can't fact-check the information. I think this can be differentiated from Joe Biden recognising the Armenian Genocide from a month ago, which didn't get posted, as Germany was at least involved in the region, and because there's a €1.1 billion reparation so it's not just politicians talking. Uses x (talk • contribs) 16:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – in principle, pending expansion of update. Widely covered, historically significant. – Sca (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment article has been updated. I also altered the blurb slightly. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:15, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Significant recognition and reparation by a nation culpable in a colonial genocide. Major event. Wizardoftheyear (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support This is an important event & the article looks good for the most part, but it has a “verification needed” tag, a “citation needed” tag & a “dubious” tag that need to be taken care of. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC) Support It looks like the article is now good enough to post. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, added two alt blurbs Support; Prefer if we say reparations. Maybe we could mention Namibia? -TenorTwelve (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think mentioning Namibia is important, but Germany doesn't consider the financial aid to be reparations (though the financial aid certainly seems like reparations), so I'm not sure if it should be called reparations (what's most important is what it's being called reliable sources). Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:57, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose There are several tags in the article. Hanamanteo (talk) 07:38, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hanamanteo: I believe I fixed all of the tags. 2601:204:D400:7310:91E0:66B:FC9B:B330 (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Lois Ehlert

Nominator's comments: Death announced on this date. Author and illustrator of children's books. Article requires some work. If someone wants to get working on the edits before me, please go ahead. Else, I will pick this up later in the day. Edits, sourcing and expansion done. Article has shaped into a good C-class biography. Meets hygiene expectations for homepage / RD. Sad week for children's literature. First Eric Carle and now, Ms Ehlert. RIP. Ktin (talk) 20:44, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support article meets quality requirements for RD. NorthernFalcon (talk) 22:11, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 23:19, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Nigeria boat accident

Nominator's comments: The previous nomination was rejection only the basis of no article created. I have created an article; however it may require expansion and referencing clean-up, help very welcome. Abcmaxx (talk) 17:38, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The article needs lots of work, but tentative support if fixed. Nevertheless, this nom should be moved to the day it happened. --Tone 17:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on principle but oppose on quality. The article needs to be longer than two sentences, but I do appreciate the editor who started the article. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality the article is 378 characters long, it's a micro-stub. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:24, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment A stub can be of good quality, lots reliable sources on an area of the world that's difficult to find credible news articles for. What else would you expect to be written in this matter? We may never get any more information on this nor an aftermath. Abcmaxx (talk) 23:47, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please work on expanding the article. This would be a suitable item if the article had more information. Jehochman ^Talk 00:28, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abcmaxx The point of ITN is to highlight good quality articles and give people looking at the front page of Wikipedia something to read, not to just post every article written about something in the news. There's literally only three lines to read in this, and posting would require pushing off articles that are actually comprehensive (right now, that'd be this stub replacing a blurb with both a featured article and a B-class article). Uses x (talk • contribs) 12:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Uses x: whilst I take your point on board I nominated 2021 Mali coup d'état when the news broke. No article could be found so I created one, a short stub to begin with. Other users expanded it thanks to the nomination proposal so much so it was posted in the end. Whilst I understand your point this article could still follow the same route. Even a stub nomination can be of benefit to everybody Abcmaxx (talk) 14:01, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abcmaxx I appreciate that you nominated this - it's certainly significant enough to get posted, it's just that there's not enough information out there to write an article about it. I couldn't find anything myself. Uses x (talk • contribs) 15:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Uses x: without wanting to sound derogatory what else is there to be added? The cause and effect of this tragedy is fairly simple. Sadly in that part of the world there are minimal health and safety laws, poor conditions of transport, weak enforcement, inadequate licencing regulations etc. In reality there could be little to no aftermath other than a public outcry and sadness. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Abcmaxx: what else is there to be added - nothing. If that's all the information out there it doesn't meet the quality bar for me, and as for significance this kind of thing isn't new, it should've been easy to spot (everyone knows about overloading boats), and it'll happen again. there could be little to no aftermath other than a public outcry and sadness - my view is that ITN is for highlighting quality articles, and that's it. Not bringing attention to this kind of negligence or injustice for the sake of it - there needs to be a quality article behind it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 21:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Uses x: Quality not quantity though. There's plenty of quality in this article, although not much quantity. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support There has been an expansion by User:NorthernFalcon. I think there is enough there to post now.P-K3 (talk) 17:13, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Most of what's currently there is just filler. There needs to be more information about the actual event. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:22, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  As well as that, "the National Inland Waterways Authority (NIWA) gave 168 persons as the estimated figure of casualties in the last one year" [1]. This kind of thing isn't new. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Actually in contrast to Uses X, given that what happened was that the boat was overloaded with passengers and broke in two, I think what happened at the accident is all that is needed - the response section - the need for better safety measures in the future, is absolutely appropriate for the expansion here and makes this sufficient. --Masem (t) 17:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If the change in safety measures is a vital part of the story then the blurb needs to include it. Right now, the summary given in the blurb is that the accident is the only notable part of the article. Uses x (talk • contribs) 17:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not like the safety measures are going to happen overnight. Airplane crashes lead to similar changes but it takes time to implement. The news story is still the boat sinking and loss of life, there's just not much more about the details that need to be explained. Too many people were put on beyond the rated limit. Not every disaster needs an in-depth analysis of the cause-and-effect. Similar to the above Iran navy vessel story. --Masem (t) 17:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not like the safety measures are going to happen overnight It's Nigeria, so they're most likely not going to happen at all. As I said, filler. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:33, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support If it's not too late and condolences to the victims' families. Cheers, 70.23.250.93 (talk) 18:45, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Decent length. Citation coverage is good (try to avoid clusters). Joofjoof (talk) 22:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted I put it at the top of the list so it gets equal exposure. This might be irregular. So what? The news was a little slow arriving but it is informative for the reader and helps provide a better view of world events. Jehochman ^Talk 23:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jehochman "ITN items are in a bulleted list, ordered chronologically by date of occurrence", no exceptions. Bait30 made the WP:ERRORS request so that's been fixed. Uses x (talk • contribs) 23:36, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I knew someone would complain. I thought it justifiable per IAR, myself. P-K3 (talk) 23:40, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's fifth on a list of up to six, so it will hopefully remain for at least a few days. Jehochman ^Talk 23:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Robbie McCauley

Nominator's comments: African-American playwright. Substantial entry, working on making sure it’s fully referenced. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Referenced and reorganized. It’s not GA-quality but it surveys her career and works in, I hope, readable fashion. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:23, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Can post this on MainPage after more reviews by other wikieditors. --PFHLai (talk) 09:56, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 10:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: John Hodge (engineer)

Nominator's comments: Death announced on this date. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Nice article, assuming good faith on book citations JW 1961 ^Talk 11:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This looks ready to me, but the oldest name currently on ITN-RD got there less than 24 hours ago. So, I'll wait a few hours. --PFHLai (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now posted. --PFHLai (talk) 09:39, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Kees de Jager

Nominator's comments: Dutch astronomer, recently turned 100. Some citation work needed, which I will get on to today, but broadly looks OK.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've added sources and reworked the article for a bit, it looks good now --Vacant0 (talk) 11:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait There are problems with referencing. For example, the sole reference in "Sun-climate relations" is an obscure book written by a climate skeptic with only a B.A. degree in social sciences. Typical. I'll work on it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 18:45, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't think I can get rid of that bad citation as it's a decent synthesis of the actual method de Jager used, but I've added reliable citations for the factual things instead. That's the most that can probably be done. Otherwise, fully referenced. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:59, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 10:12, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Foster Friess

Nominator's comments: Prominent donor to the Republican Party in the US. Looks like a comprehensive and well-cited article already, so probably not much work needed on this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – refs 7–14 are bare links. Also, refs 5, 6, and 35 are sourced to his personal website without qualifying the info in the prose (contrast with ref 8). —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bloom6132: I've replaced or filled in the bare URLs, and also either provided better sources, clarified or removed some stuff cited to his personal site. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – corrected one minor chronological inaccuracy as to his cancer diagnosis, but other than that, it looks like it meets the minimum requirements. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks alright! --Vacant0 (talk) 12:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Carla Fracci

Nominator's comments: One of the leading ballerinas of the 20th century. There was some article, especially a gorgeous image, and since yesterday, we have worked on it. I just ran into an edit conflict so have time to nominate. More detail will come I bet, and please help. Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks good! --Vacant0 (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Harvey Schlossberg

Nominator's comments: Only reported today (May 27); died on May 21. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:28, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support more than good enough for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support well-cited --Vacant0 (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Llew Smith

Nominator's comments: Former Wales MP, already expanded significantly by me in April 2020. PotentPotables (talk) 14:54, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks fully sourced and ready.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:53, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Only one unsourced sentence, which I just added citations for. Looks good otherwise. —Nizolan ^{(talk · c.)} 22:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 01:35, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Murray Dowey

 Bloom6132 (talk) 10:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Amakuru, Bagumba, Black Kite, and PFHLai: what are your thoughts on this? Does it meet the minimum requirements for ITN? —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Looks OK for a basic short article, and covers the most important aspect of his life, the 1948 Olympics. Marking as ready and attention needed etc, so hopefully this can be posted shortly.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:25, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Syrian presidential election

Will remain posted and no consensus to alter the blurb. Stephen 10:25, 1 June 2021 (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: 2021 Syrian presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Syria, Bashar al-Assad (pictured) is re-elected as president (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Bashar al-Assad is re-elected as president of Syria in a sham election.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Bashar al-Assad is re-elected as president of Syria in a disputed election.
News source(s): Sky
Credits:

• Nominated by Hrodvarsson (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: Narrow victory after a hard-fought campaign. Hrodvarsson (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support ITN/R and the article is satisfactory. Mlb96 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The article looks ready.--Sakiv (talk) 23:36, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nomination but strong oppose blurb: blurb make it sound like an ordinary election rather than an attempt to legitimise a dictatorship with very few standard electoral procedures. I would propose adding; "disputed", "contentious", "un-accepted", or "widely discredited". Abcmaxx (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support It's ITN/R and the article is fine. The blurb on Vladimir Putin's 2018 re-election is an example that commentary about the legitimacy of the election shouldn't be put in the blurb. There are 2 citation needed tags, but it's just a list of countries so it's not vital information. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 11:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-posting comment: We should not unquestionably report the results of sham "elections" put on by autocracies in our voice. What about "In Syria, Bashar al-Assad (pictured) is announced to have won re-election as president. Sandstein 12:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How about "is re-erected as president" – ?? ... ;-) — Sca (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on the comments above I am going to adjust the blurb to try to accurately summarize the content of the article and not create a misimpression (as the current blurb clearly does). Jehochman ^Talk 14:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "that is denounced as illegitimate" seems rather too strong for our own voice, leaving us open to POV criticism. Suggest "that is discredited by critics." – Sca (talk) 14:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I can fix that by saying who the critics are. The reader can decide for themselves what to believe. The article cites a source using the word "denounced" with regard to the US, so let's stick with that. I changed "illegitimate" to "undemocratic" to more closely hew to the source for the EU's statement. Jehochman ^Talk 16:59, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The new language, that is denounced as undemocratic by the United States and the European Union, works for me. TNX. – Sca (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sca, Jehochman, PFHLai, and Sandstein: Shouldn't we add that the Syrian actual opposition thinks its undemocratic too? After all their voice is probably more important than that of an outsider.Abcmaxx (talk) 17:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The present blurb seems forceful enough – altho perhaps there's still something to be said for the more generalized "that is discredited by critics" – maybe expanded a bit as "that is discredited by domestic and foreign critics" – ?? You tell me. – Sca (talk) 17:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we keep the ITN blurbs short, please? I'd rather people click the link on MainPage and read the article for details. Just a short one indicating that Bashar is back for another "term" is long enough. --PFHLai (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment we don't editorialize on elections in blurbs unless we want to include Egypt and Russia as well. Just put it back. He doesn't "claim victory" either. Readers can dig in on the target article and make their own decision. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have to agree: while it is a true statement it is inappropriate editorializing for an ITN item and reflects a very specific world view that ITN should not necessarily be promoting. If the news was some international court case to challenge the election, that would be appropriate, but to add this when we haven't it for, say, Russia's elections is extremely hypocritical and unnecessary. --Masem (t) 22:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is also editorializing to just say he won the election without further comment. We are not here to whitewash dictators who stage fraudulent elections. The article documents what each country has said. The blurb doesn't have space to list all of them, so we highlight a few of the most significant critics. This is better than an anonymous, "some say the election was undemocratic." That's my reading of the above discussion. Jehochman ^Talk 23:33, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not WP's place to classify elections as fair or unfair unless it's determined through evidence and appropriate review processes that an election was deemed unfair. While there's certainly numerous questions about Syria's election process here and the US + EU are absolutely morally right to put these questions forth, that's not WP's issue to try to take a stand on. This is not an issue we should be taken a position on in a brief statement. The article should absolutely cover it, but out of Wikivoice and without comment. --Masem (t) 23:41, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        I have restored the original blurb. As noted, It is not our place to editorialise.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

        • To me, it seems like the original blurb editorializes that the election was a normal election that was free and fair. It’s misleading. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • This is a grave error. It is not our job to serve up propaganda put out by the Syrian government. It is very important to report, according to the reliable sources that appear in the article itself, that it is seriously disputed that this was a democratic election. Jehochman ^Talk 02:02, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
          • It is disputed by some governments, but WP is not the mouthpiece of these governments. Other governments support the elections. The article should absolutely cover that the election is disputed by some governments, but we should not be pretend that the US or aligned governments are necessarily "right" here. --Masem (t) 02:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
            • Why are we a mouthpeace for Syria? They claim to have had an election. Anyone who cares about democracy is laughing at this sham election. Why are we spreading the propaganda of Syria, Iran, Russia, China and North Korea? Jehochman ^Talk 02:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • Ah yes, the "axis of evil." To avoid being a mouthpiece for them, let's instead be a mouthpiece for the CIA, that solves the problem entirely. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • What the hell are you talking about? Are you suggesting that the EU, France, and Germany are mouthpieces of the CIA? Your comment is very strange indeed. Jehochman ^Talk 03:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
              • If there was complete worldwide rebuttal against the elections as rigged with only Syria acting as if they were legit, then yes, we may have room to speak against them. But all we have at least documented in the article is what appears to be five or six countries in the entire world that are speaking against it, far from anywhere close this to even consider it a fact that the elections were rigged. WP cannot make that assumption in Wikivoice, period, this is a fundamental NPOV issue. Now, I'm not saying the blurb as modified made that assumption in Wikivoice, but it stressed a point that made it clearly non-neutral. It would be like saying, back in 2016 "President Trump won the US election by a out-of-date electoral college system according to many experts." as the blurb. Fact and sourcable, but its editorializing that we cannot do. --Masem (t) 04:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
                • We don't give North Korea a veto. You are being patently absurd. All reliable sources are reporting that this is a sham election. We must say so or we are seriously deceiving the reader. Jehochman ^Talk 05:31, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support a simple and neutral "is re-elected president". It only links to the article which does a good job. It does not say the election was democratic, or free, or fair, either. People unfamiliar will find out from the article; those familiar will know something's up anyway. Usedtobecool ☎️ 03:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If the election is rigged, then he isn't "re-elected." He's declared president in a rigged election. Syria reported 95% support for Al-Assad with 78% turnout. More people voted for him, allegedly, than the total population of the parts of Syria under government control. This is painfully obvious fraud. Lying can take the form of stating something that's untrue, but there is also lying by omission, failing to include highly relevant facts. Wikipedia shouldn't do either. I know this is hard, but we should do the work needed to get this right. Jehochman ^Talk 04:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  This is world politics. If there is demonstrable consensus among world countries or world academia that the election was rigged, we could do that. But we can't put out a blurb that claims more than our article can. "Assad is declared winner in an election that had more voters than the population in the territories which could possibly hold an election,^{[according to whom?]}" and was condemned by the United States and its allies but welcomed by Russia and its allies" is too long. Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There is universal consensus among reliable sources that the election is a sham. Read the article. We are not judging what countries think. We follow what reliable sources say. Jehochman ^Talk 12:49, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb Egregious case of false balance. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:48, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  How about the alternative blurb? Jehochman ^Talk 05:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added a less sensationalist blurb as altblurb2. I personally don't think it should be added as, again, people can read the article and make a decision for themselves, but that is strictly factual so I wouldn't have a problem with it. Uses x (talk • contribs) 05:43, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Introducing "disputed" seems like a slippery slope to me. We'll have to decide in future which to label as disputed and which not - after all, plenty of elections are disputed including the most recent US election. Far better to just state the raw fact that there was an election, and person X won it, without attempting to editorialise in the blurb, then leave the detailed analysis to the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn’t seem like a slippery slope to me because it’s what reliable sources are calling this election. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 22:00, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Pull – This bland simple sentence does not summarize the story in a balanced and accurate way. There's been ample RS reporting to show that Bashar wasn't (re-) "elected" in the normal sense of the term. If we can't agree on "disputed" or something similar, the blurb should be pulled. It's misleading, thus an error – Sca (talk) 12:50, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore that other countries/the EU consider it unfair. It's not us judging it unfair(which we shouldn't do) but merely reporting what others say about the fairness of the election. This is a significant aspect of the reporting. I agree that just saying "sham" or "disputed" should not be done because that would be us judging it. 331dot (talk) 13:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason you're saying "restore" when it hasn't yet been pulled? – Sca (talk) 13:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I call for restoring the part of the blurb that was removed. 331dot (talk) 13:46, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's only a small subset of the rest of the world calling it unfair, it's not like the rest of the world is. Its a decidedly pro-Western democracy stance, which we should avoid trying to focus on even if we generally agree with it. --Masem (t) 13:12, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absent a supranational body to make binding legal determinations about the fairness of elections, that's all we have. 331dot (talk) 13:52, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the article cites other countries giving congratulations to him without questioning the elections (albeit those countries having their own questionable politics under Western demographic standards), no, that's not the only bar, and that's the issue. WP can't take a moral stance here. --Masem (t) 13:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The reporting does not focus on the countries that say it was fair and as you point out most of those conduct unfair elections themselves. That's not our moral judgment, but that of RS. 331dot (talk) 14:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support Fine as is, let's follow precedent (e.g. Russia) and try to not go beyond that. Gotitbro (talk) 13:28, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull If we can’t accurately summarize the article then let’s be silent. The article says this election was a sham. It also says the results are not accepted by the US and the EU. I’m fine with sham, disputed or saying who disputes it. I am not fine with suggesting this was a legitimate election as we are currently doing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:34, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The US and EU are irrelevant, because the election took place in Syria. And it should not be pulled, because elections are ITN/R. But what recurs is that we post the result of the election and its impact on who will lead the nation going forward. All things which are unambiguous in this case. What we don't include in the one-line blurb is value judgements on whether the election was "legitimate" or not. This is not rocket science.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Headlines we never saw: "Brezhnev elected president of U.S.S.R." – Sca (talk) 13:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  If a head of state was appointed to the position, that's what the blurb says. See: Miguel Díaz-Canel's blurb just over a month ago. Uses x (talk • contribs) 13:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Maybe this should be discussed in general on the talk page, though it still might remain necessary to decide on case-by-case basis. Looking back at two controversial elections, the 2019 Bolivian general election and the 2021 Ugandan general election: For the former, we posted a blurb pointing out some aspects of the controversy, for the latter, we did not. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The final blurb was "Amid days of protests in Bolivia, incumbent president Evo Morales is re-elected to office." - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:In_the_news&oldid=923291336 Uses x (talk • contribs) 14:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, Uses x! I also tried to find what we'd posted after the 2020 Belarusian presidential election, but it appears that the focus then was on the protests: "Pro-democracy protests intensify in Belarus after the contested reelection of incumbent President Alexander Lukashenko (pictured)"] [2] (btw, if anyone knows a better way of navigating through what we've posted other than clicking through diffs of the template, please let me know). I still think it might be worth having a discussion outside this thread, since there doesn't seem to be agreement in this instance. ---Sluzzelin talk 14:58, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment if we're going to use the blurb to highlight that the election was disputed by the US and EU then we need to include Egypt and Russias more supportive position. Or maybe just leave it alone, and not editorialize in the blurb? Y'all act like somehow a blurb on the front page of Wikipedia "legitimizes" al-Assad as if we included the word "disputed" then suddenly all our WP:READERS would unite and help overthrow the regime. Get ahold of yourselves. It's easy to be "neutral" when everyone agrees, it's much harder to set emotions and POV aside when the outcome is undesirable. Also, unless we seriously expect the outcome to change, I think this has run it's course. --LaserLegs (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull The current blurb is very misleading & it doesn’t reflect that reliable sources are calling it a disputed election. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 21:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Claims victory in a disputed election" or "controversial election" should suffice, alt blurb II is ok in that regard. The details are in the article to click. Pulling is not the best option here, it should be reserved only for articles with insufficient quality or where consensus for posting has not been reached. Brandmeister^talk 07:39, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Trust me, I'm a doctor The current perfunctory blurb doesn't work because it's just a continuation of the current administration so where's the significance? How about showing how this matters? For example, Assad now has a seat on the executive of the World Health Organisation. But he's a qualified doctor so that's all good. What could possibly go wrong ... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's ITN/R, the significance has already been determined. And writing "Bashar al-Assad is re-elected as president of Syria, giving him an executive seat on the WHO" is more obvious POV-pushing than whatever else has been suggested. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 09:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The election of Syria to the WHO executive happened at the Saturday session of the World Health Assembly, whereas the presidential election took place a week ago. So it would be good to report this fresher news. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:22, 1 June 2021 (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: Kay Lahusen

Nominator's comments: Lesbian activist and photographer. Needs a few refs which obits should supply, will work on this today. Innisfree987 (talk) 12:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The entry is now thoroughly referenced. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks well-cited now --Vacant0 (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looking ready for RD JW 1961 ^Talk 21:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted --PFHLai (talk) 09:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Closed) San Jose shooting

(Posted) RD: Mufti Abdul Razzaq

Nominator's comments: Article updated. Subject was a notable scholar, Mufti and an activist of Indian freedom struggle. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 17:52, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment / oppose for now. The subject is being lauded as a freedom fighter for India, yet there is no coverage of this in the article. The narrative doesn't really begin until 1952.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Amakuru, addressed with a related fact. I'd surely update it further whenever I've access to more information ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 14:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Owais ^Talk 15:48, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Amakuru: do you still have any objection? I've not heard from you since two days. @Stephen:, may this be posted now? ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 16:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @TheAafi: I still feel this is light on detail. Surely if sources are describing him as a leading freedom fighter, there must be more to say than just "he was involved in a fight"?  — Amakuru (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Amakuru, it happens that if someone takes even a little part in any good effort, he is lauded very much. I skimmed through the whole 600+ p. book on him and his works; and the best I could get was the fact that I've added in the article. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 17:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I also see that he was 22 at the time of India's independence. It doesn't make sense that he would have been a leading figure; unless he was born some years earlier (or started any movement etc). I often see exaggeration while Indian freedom fighters are venerated. The best I can think that he might've participated after he was "18 yo" until 1947 when he was "22" because he was close to Hussain Ahmad Madani - but the major source on his life and works omits all of these and mentions in light detail his little participation. ─ The Aafī on Mobile ^(talk) 18:13, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support However I believe that the "Literary works" section needs some expansion. There should be a short introduction about his writings. --Gazal world (talk) 17:07, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Is this going to be posted? I've already addressed the major and necessary issues. 7- days are going to pass and this should be getting sometime on the ITN. Noting that, I'll surely update the details about literary works if possible. Thanks. ─ The Aafī ^(talk) 06:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any further input from Amakuru, please? --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    @PFHLai and TheAafi: apologies for not coming back to you, but I see it's been posted now so all's well that ends well. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    No worries, Amakuru. --PFHLai (talk) 09:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 02:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Eric Carle

Nominator's comments: American designer and children's book writer, author of The Very Hungry Caterpillar, dies at age 91. Davey2116 (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD, maybe blurb I am open to a blurb for him, a major author -TenorTwelve (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality I would 100% support a blurb seeing how his book became the best selling children's book of all time. However, the article is in bad shape and needs to be beefed up with sources. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:07, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please consider holding off on the blurb debate until the quality is addressed. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Drawing attention: If someone has existing newspapers.com access through the Wikipedia library it'd be helpful for citing his early life. I'm hitting a paywall. Uses x (talk • contribs) 00:46, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  working on cites... will work thru more tomorrow. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Selected works might need to be renamed. Judging by the pace of output and timeframe, this might well be an exhaustive list (thus strike "Selected"). They're all books published in the US (save the doodle) so a search through Library of Congress should give both ISBNs and reveal whether anything is missing. If the list in indeed "selected" then there needs to be clear criteria for selection or else tagged with ((list missing criteria)).130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb. Many people have heard of and read this book, but that doesn't make its author automatically transformative.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• RD only – Per Amakuru. A charming kids' book, but at most a literary footnote. – Sca (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD, maybe blurb Major author who died at a very old age; I think the general consensus is that he 100% needs an RD nomination, but the blurb is optional. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 13:58, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD only Looks like the article is now of a sufficient quality to post to RD.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support RD It's now fully cited and it's long enough for RD, but not blurb-quality. Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)″[reply]

Support he was a very influential author, also wrote "Brown Bear, Brown Bear, what do you see?"

• RD only He was influential but not enough for a blurb. KingOfAllThings ^{(thou shalt chatter!)} 22:01, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Still a few unsourced claims. Stephen 01:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Should be all resolved now unless I've missed anything Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 02:02, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 02:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Appears on virtually every list of the most read children's authors, most of whom are long dead. We posted Sendak, and would have posted Seuss, Lewis, Alcott. This is the peer group. GreatCaesarsGhost 12:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose blurb whilst The Very Hungry Caterpillar is a household name, Eric Carle is not. Until seeing this RD nom, I didn't know the author's name. His name is much less well known than other people who have been refused blurbs for their deaths here previously. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's specious reasoning. He is extremely prominent in his field, so if you don't know who he is, that means you have very little knowledge of that field. So how can you weigh his relative importance? GreatCaesarsGhost 13:20, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I know exactly who Sendak, Lewis, Seuss and Alcott are, without having to be told their most famous work(s). That simply isn't the case for Carle. Just because lots of people know the book, that doesn't mean they know the author. Which is why I'm disputing the fact that his death is notable enough for a blurb, which is something we reserve for extremely rare cases for super-important people. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, Carle is not famous for a single book. If you exclude his top seller, he's still outsold Lewis Carroll, ER Burroughs, Ian Fleming, etc. GreatCaesarsGhost 18:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose blurb, blurbs should be reserved for individuals whose death and/or funeral could have a stand-alone article. Abductive (reasoning) 13:41, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Observation - not even 12 hours after posting and he's off RD, despite receiving numerous blurb supports, in favour of several very non-prominent people that received singular supports for their RD on May 27. This system is very broken. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 14:20, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sometimes we have lots of RD noms, sometimes we have fewer. Can we restore under-exposed ones on lull days? Or shall we set a minimum time for MainPage appearances? --PFHLai (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    This may be a non-starter and might lead to disputes, but is it possible we could have two tiers of RDs - those that have strong blurb support could be tier 2 and therefore retained on RD for longer than the run-of-the-mill entries? Personally I think it was right not to blurb Eric Carle, but then again it is legitimate to say that some people were looking for his article after he died and that it might be good to keep him up for at least a couple of days.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    There is on-going discussion on this issue at Wikipedia talk:In the news#Brainstorm on fixing the broken system. Please join. --PFHLai (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: H. S. Doreswamy

Nominator's comments: Indian civil rights activist. News just breaking. Article is almost ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 16:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Looks ok, I can't see any referencing problems.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:57, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) Milieudefensie et al v Royal Dutch Shell

• Comment: This is the first time a big oil company is ordered by a court to cut its carbon emissions. The Guardian calls it a landmark ruling and the Wall Street Journal argues it could set a precedent for other jurisdictions. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 16:04, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments This does seem like a case that could set a major precedent, and I'm seeing coverage in plenty of major outlets (Bloomberg, NPR, CNN, etc.), but it's also a three-sentence article. I understand nominating things at ITN/C to help get the article developed, but this one needs a lot of development; based on importance, I would be inclined to support based on what I've seen of the story if the article is greatly expanded.. Also, I would take "compared to 2019 levels" out of the blurb; I get that it's theoretically notable, but IMO, not enough to take up space on the main page. -- Kicking222 (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have expanded it to the point that it would be minimum size for main page. --Masem (t) 18:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you very much, Masem! And I agree with you, Kicking222, to leave "compared to 2019 levels" out of the blurb. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose It's great news and thanks to Masem it has enough information, but Royal Dutch Shell have said they're likely to appeal the decision, so ultimately it's a district court ordering something which might end up just being overturned. [Irish Independent] Uses x (talk • contribs) 19:22, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The court declared the verdict immediately enforceable. Shell must uphold the verdict until the verdict is overturned. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Not familiar with Dutch law but doesn't every civil law system have a mechanism that allows the appeals court to suspend immediate enforcement until the appeal is decided? Regards SoWhy 20:01, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    • We also generally post on the conviction of a major trial even though we know that appeals are usually 100% assured. --Masem (t) 20:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is up to date, sufficiently detailed and referenced (though a bit short), and the story is in reliable news sources now. Since the story is in the news now, it is most appropriate to post it now. What may or may not happen at future times regarding appeals and overturning is irrelevant as news sources are covering the verdict now. --Jayron32 19:59, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I am pretty sure that this will be overturned on appeal but it is being reported on in a lot of media, including here in Germany, making it ITN worthy. I did tag one statement as needing a secondary source though. Regards SoWhy 20:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Provided the secondary source--a German secondary source even :-). Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 20:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The article is in good quality, and it's an interesting precedent which has received plenty of coverage. Of course, this case will drag on for years, but that's a different story. KittenKlub (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this is an encyclopedic article, not a trash overhyped piece of pulp. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 21:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose misleading. The claim "contributing about 1% to global emissions" is cited to the Guardian which itself cites nothing but "court claims". Here is an actual fact: Shell is the 9th largest producer of greenhouse gas emissions when you factor in Scope 3 greenhouse gas emissions which factors in other parties burning oil produced by shell. That's right. [3] KLM burning oil? That's counted against shell. Dutch energy burning oil? That's counted against shell. Climate change is real, it is a serious threat to human health and food security, but this lawsuit is bullshit and the target article is propaganda. --LaserLegs (talk) 21:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the article notes, this decide applies to all of Shell's buyers and suppliers too, so absolutely not BS. --Masem (t) 22:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Interesting article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As someone who has recently published two peer-reviewed manuscripts on topics from energy economics, I consider this verdict of strategic significance in relation to efficient energy consumption. This doesn't set merely a precedent that may be followed by other judiciaries but it impacts the way energy consumption will be optimised in the future.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support an important case, not least because it includes all of their suppliers in this. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:11, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Looks good to go. Hanamanteo (talk) 09:30, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Posting. --Tone 09:40, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak oppose post-posting: I understand the political significance highlighted by the support votes above. However, there is virtually no legal significance to this at all. As Judiciary of the Netherlands explains, this is a first-instance decision which is already under appeal. Given the issues and money involved, it's almost certain to end up in the Supreme Court of the Netherlands and probably also the European Court of Human Rights. It'll be literally years before we can tell whether this is genuinely significant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:15, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in mind that the same Dutch judicial system upheld similar action taken against the country's gov't in State of the Netherlands v. Urgenda Foundation a few years back to undertake actions to meet climate change goals, so there's a strong chance it will survive a challenge. I would agree that if this was a case originating out of a US federal district court, where there was little higher level action at SCOTUS, it probably would not have had similar news-shattering events. --Masem (t) 13:14, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • All that may be true, but it is also irrelevant. It is in the news now, which is why we post it now. Everyone has reasons why they find a story significant or important to themselves, but we rely on reliable sources at Wikipedia, not personal feelings or preferences. Sources are covering this story now, and it doesn't really matter what the story is, just that reliable sources are treating it as a big deal, which is why it is appropriate to post. --Jayron32 13:20, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Post-post support Not every blurb is limited to eradicating cancer ... or completely solving global warming. Quality new page that's prominently in the news works for me (not to be confused with a WP:NOTDIARY update of a celebrity).—Bagumba (talk) 11:39, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• PP Comment – The complexity of this issue, and its possible transitoriness, make it quite dubious as a blurb. – Sca (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed. I suspect it's nowhere near as significant as this discussion seems to think it is, but hey ho...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's life in the big city. (But hey, I learned that transitoriness is actually a word.) – Sca (talk) 14:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Another comment - why is there a picture of Shell's headquarters attached to this story? I thought images were included to assist readers in understanding a story, but that picture of a building has very little to do with the court ruling or its ramifications. We'd rather just stick with the pic of the Samoan PM-elect, which at least is relevant to its story.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the royal we? ;-) – Sca (talk) 13:46, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Swapped. The building is uninvolved.—Bagumba (talk) 13:42, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

X-Press Pearl

• Comment The article implies that the crew safely evacuated with no deaths, and doesn't say anything about an oil spill. Mlb96 (talk) 06:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As no deaths occured, specific information about the environmental impact is needed before it can be considered. Uses x (talk • contribs) 06:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment – More information from more sources needed. – Sca (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support once more information comes out This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 14:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose/Wait Article needs to be more developed, per WP:WEIGHT, the article is likely at the wrong title. It should be about the event, something like X-Press Pearl fire, as the article isn't about the ship, it is about the fire onboard the ship. If you want the article to be about the ship, you'll need a LOT more information about the ship before the fire. I'm not entirely sure we need an article about this ship, and since this fire is all we really care about, it should probably be moved. Furthermore, the article itself needs some expansion before it is main page ready. --Jayron32 20:53, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Based on the lead and the page title, it seems like the page is about the ship itself, but it's dominated by the fire. It the ship is notable, more background text is needed. If it's the fire, name it as such, so it's notability can be judged against Wikipedia:Notability (events).—Bagumba (talk) 04:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Posted) RD: Samuel E. Wright

Nominator's comments: Aged 74. Voiced Sebastian the crab in The Little Mermaid. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Needs some work - it's currently orange tagged, and sparse in coverage.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: Does ITN-RD require footnotes in the filmography sections? If not, this short little wikibio would be ready. --PFHLai (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, the filmography needs to be sourced. P-K3 (talk) 00:14, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks, P-K3. Fakescientist8000, please add footnotes and refs to the filmography section soon. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 00:47, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I will be sure to do that as soon as possible. Fakescientist8000 (talk) 11:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Posted. I see that User:Кирилл С1 has added quite a few footnotes to the filmography section. Thank you. --PFHLai (talk) 23:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone Yaas

Article: Cyclone Yaas (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Cyclone Yaas impacts Odisha and West Bengal in East India, forcing the evacuation of more than a million people. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Cyclone Yaas impacts Odisha, West Bengal and Bihar in Eastern India, directly affecting more than ten million people and causing ₹15,000 crore (equivalent to ₹170 billion or US$2.0 billion in 2023) in damage in West Bengal alone.
News source(s): The Guardian, IMD, Hindustan Times, Free Press Journal, AP, The Economic Times
Credits:

• Nominated by ArnabSaha (talk · give credit)
• Created by VNC200 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by HurricaneParrot (talk · give credit)

Article updated

  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  11:42, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait While it has caused a large number of evacuations, if there are minimal deaths, this likely will not be appropriate to post for ITN. --Masem (t) 12:54, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Around 10 deaths (7 before and 3 today, as of now). And coastal villages and towns flooded. (Aljazeera)  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  13:12, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not saying that number of deaths won't make it, but it is this time of year that storms will threaten several parts of the world and will do damage, but we simply don't have room to post all landfall-making, damage-dealing storms with few-to-no death counts, even if it causes temporary displace of millions of people. I'm only saying wait here because the landfall was this morning so full impact is not yet known. --Masem (t) 13:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I understand that everything can't be included in the ITN. But, the degree of damage is very high, as the areas got flooded (it didn't even happen during the Super cyclone last year) due to high tide at the time of landfall.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very high impact, potential/likely further impact, number of deaths already. Article is decent. Melmann 13:27, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I did my best to find all the reported deaths from Yaas and I got 7. When did you get the three more, @ArnabSaha:? You are welcome to edit the article to reflect the latest informations about the impact of Yaas. I'm currently on my wikibreak, but I'll do my best to update the article. Thanks and stay safe, 🌀HurricaneParrot🐦 13:33, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @HurricaneParrot: 2 more deaths in Odisha [5]  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  14:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait – storm surge looks bad but death toll is relatively low at this time. Will revisit in ~12h and see if the death toll jumps after sunrise. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 15:30, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moving to oppose. Death toll hasn't risen since yesterday, evacuations, mangroves, and numerous rescue operations by emergency services seem to have done their bit. Coverage by news outlets outside of India is fading quickly. ~ KN2731 {talk · contribs} 08:31, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait – We need to wait until more death/damage reports come in and things stabilise in India a little bit.Jason Rees (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article quality is excellent and while it might be nice to wait for damage reports, the reality is that it's in the news now, not so much later. Only thing that might be nice is a current fatality/injury count in the sidebar, but it's ultimately trivial given the article quality. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not enough deaths... appears to be an average storm thus far. Noah^Talk 19:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait – We need to know the full scale of impact first, it isn't enough right now for ITN. codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 20:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – Per KN2731. Nothing much has changed overnight, I don't think much more impact will come from this storm... codingcyclone ^advisories/_damages 19:55, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose for now. Come on, evacuations aren't going to be enough to make this storm notable. --WaltCip-(talk) 20:48, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt blurb II is just pure trivia. More fitting for DYK than ITN. --WaltCip-(talk) 20:57, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait pending the article being updated with impact information. --Jayron32 20:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Yaas is notable enough for many ways: it triggered a mass evacuation in Odisha and West Bengal in India and Bangladesh. Second, it caused a wide swath of destruction, as seen in media reports, an example is flooding. Third, it already caused 9 deaths and the reason the fatalities were low is due to the immediate action of the authorities from Yaas; the evacuations. But we have to wait a little for more impacts about Yaas, as the system is still active and the reports of impacts are not that fast to transmit to different media services, newspapers and articles. 🌀HurricaneParrot🐦 09:16, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @HurricaneParrot: Btw, another tornado outbreak in Ashoknagar Kalyangarh [6]  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:59, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @ArnabSaha:, Okay, added. Is there any more? 🌀HurricaneParrot🐦 02:06, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @HurricaneParrot: no...  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  07:27, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @ArnabSaha:, last-minute request: can you change the blurb of the article? I don't know how, I'm new here. And, the article itself is updated. Over $2 billion in damages and 20 deaths. Thank you so much. 🌀HurricaneParrot🐦 06:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @HurricaneParrot: did some modifications.  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  09:44, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment blurb should probably be updated, as it's now affected places in India, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh- possibly change the places to Indian subcontinent, or list the countries? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:00, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait – Per Masem, Jayron, Walt. Australian AP says six fatalities "reported." This, in a country of 1.4 billion, seems of questionable import. Developing. – Sca (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Nothing exceptional about this, the seasonal monsoon is more notable. Given India's massive population and the population density of Bangladesh, evacuations of more than a million people in this region are normal. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 00:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – Per Cyclonebiskit. Honestly, this fits more for DYK more than ITN, since the blurb is mainly trivial. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 17:31, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: more than 20 deaths reported and the blurb has been updated  Saha ❯❯❯ Stay safe  08:13, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Even with 20 deaths, this is just an average storm, not notable enough for ITN. ~~ 🌀𝚂𝙲𝚂 𝙲𝙾𝚁𝙾𝙽𝙰🌀 15:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]