Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates/December 2020

This page is an archive and its contents should be preserved in their current form; any comments regarding this page should be directed to Wikipedia talk:In the news. Thanks.

(Posted) RD: Joan Micklin Silver

 * Support. In good shape now. Innisfree987 (talk) 05:48, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Article is ready for MP. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 08:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Dick Thornburgh

 * Oppose - most of the article is unreferenced, meaning it is very much not front page material. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose needs references. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose too far away on quality standards. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 22:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jolanta Fedak

 * Support – article is concise but past stub class. It is also well referenced. TJMSmith (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Stubby, some possible translation infelicities. There is nothing about her career outside politics, and what she did in office when she achieved it. Also no personal life at all (spouse, children). The date of her post-grad study would be useful (at least was it immediately after her undergrad education or later). Plenty to time to expand. I can't assess the given sources, which are nearly all Polish language. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Some details have been added. MurielMary (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Another case of starting from the top when we have discussed starting from the bottom might be the more optimal way to post. Ktin (talk) 00:35, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , and, fwiw -- this article was NOT ready. It clearly fails the Spencer test. The article is just a listing of political offices and elections contested. There is absolutely nothing about the Fedak's political career in terms of work done, topics and policies advanced. Ktin (talk) 00:53, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Spencer's views on how much detail is necessary in a political biography are not shared by all of us here and should not hold up posting an item that meets the RD criteria.P-K3 (talk) 14:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , water under the bridge now, but, expecting an article to have details about the work that a person did rather than just a listing of positions / elections seems reasonable to me. That said, other than that vital detail, this article is clean and meets hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. While I continue to maintain that this posting was rushed and also that was posted from the top rather than the bottom, I do not / will not make a case for removing this article from homepage. I would also want to acknowledge and  's efforts in shaping the article. Onwards and upwards. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 14:11, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: MF Doom

 * Support – The death has also been reported by HipHopDX and XXL. According to his family and current reporting, Dumile died on 31 October; however his death was not publicly disclosed until today, 31 December. —BLZ · talk 21:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – The article is currently very bad. Lots of uncited claims. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 21:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Need lots of citation work - uncited claims and citations to unreliable sources - and reads like a prose-ified discography atm. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's gotten substantially better, but there's still a ways to go, I think. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 02:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. I've cleared out the last of the cn tags, and I think it's ready to go. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:21, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose Comment – I know I'm at risk of being "that guy" by saying this, but this isn't a recent death, and that fact won't change no matter how good the article gets. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , in the recent death procedure page, it says "Any items older than 7 days from the date of death (or occasionally the date of announcement) are not eligble for posting." This is one of the occasions where the bolded clause is relavent. --Rockin (Talk) 22:44, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for pointing me to that. I still agree with others that the page could use some work, but it's definitely gotten closer to main page quality. Sad news to hear. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 22:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – An important figure in hip-hop, article seems to have be of acceptable quality.  –DMartin  06:57, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - He was a fairly major name in hip-hop. Article can definitely be improved though. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – One of the most important experimental hip hop artists ever.--Catlemur (talk) 09:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose - a handful of citations needed before this goes onto the main page. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:04, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go, nice work on the updates. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 20:58, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support – No cn tags currently on the page. Article is of satisfactory quality. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 18:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 21:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Narendra Kumar (mountaineer)

 * Oppose in the current state, problems with neutrality (eg in the lead) and tone as well as sourcing. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , No one has worked on the article yet. I was to work on it. Managed some sourcing before having to attend to off-wiki stuff for most of the day. Too late now for the day, so, maybe tomorrow. If you have some time and want to attack the sourcing and / or the tone go for it. Both need to be addressed. Ktin (talk) 06:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you are expert on Indian issues, it would probably be best if you work at it first. I've hacked a bit out of the lead on neutrality grounds. Probably wise to run it through Earwig before working on it, chunks probably originated elsewhere. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, Earwig does not look good at all. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's looking better now, but there are still multiple small copied phrases. I've purged those from two sources but they're still coming up from other places. Not looked at this in detail otherwise, but just to start with the list of awards in the lead could do with pruning to the most prestigious and the tone is still a bit too laudatory. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , please tone down the snark re: the text in the parenthesis. Ktin (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There was no intentional snark, sorry. I've removed the irrelevant aside. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , I have removed three awards from the lede, though I think that was not necessary. The latest Copvio report is here. I do not see any more reasons to hold this article back. Ktin (talk) 03:02, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

As I said above, there is still copying from sources. Walking away from this. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support . Comprehensive rewrite of the article completed. Here's the Copyvio report link. Article is well sourced and good to go. RIP. Ktin (talk) 21:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Great job as per usual, . Any admins patrolling ITNRD: probably worth some revdels, if they're not too complicated? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can I get an additional pair of eyes on this one? The latest Copyvio report can be accessed here. There are two direct quotes that are hits, as expected, but, with the rewrites done, this should be good to go to the homepage. Ktin (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , if it helps, I think for instance it’s things like this where the phrasing about absolving responsibility had been a quotation and then was lifted into the article without quotes. It’s a drag when that happens, tedious to locate and remove once already well into editing process. (I will go fix this one, it’s just as a for-instance. I did not look at the rest, Earwig kept timing out on me.) Innisfree987 (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You beat me to it :) Innisfree987 (talk) 03:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks :) The latest Copyvio report is here Ktin (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I’m unfortunately still wrestling with Earwig due to connectivity issues—could another editor lend us a hand? Thanks all. Innisfree987 (talk) 04:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I am working on this article. DTM (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Espresso Addict, Ktin, AleatoryPonderings, Innisfree987: I request everyone to reconsider this nomination following the changes I have made. Please see if the article is now suitable for RD. I know more can be done, but do let me know if you spot any glaring issues. DTM (talk) 17:13, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks fine from a copyvio perspective: highest hit in Earwig is 13.8%. I've lost track of all the various versions, but perhaps revdelling before 17:32, 1 January 2021 (which is apparently when I ran the problematic Earwig report) would be wise. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:18, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * AleatoryPonderings, whatever earwigs is catching now isn't a problem as you also point out. Previous copyvios are have been sorted. I have not introduced any intentional close paraphrasing. DTM (talk) 13:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Nicely done in expanding the article and categorizing it as well. I toned down the language and made a few minor copyedits, otherwise it looks good. Latest link to CopyVio report is here. Just for the record, this article was ready as of this revision with the corresponding CopyVio report here. This article should not have had to wait an extra day. But, anyways here we are, and the article expansion is definitely a positive. Nicely done. Ktin (talk) 20:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ktin, so all that is left to do is wait, right? DTM (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have Earwig back online (ish) so I’m going through and will check back when finished, hopefully not too long. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Okay I’ve been through all the Earwig pings (two searches, one of cited sources and one of web broadly), removed three small phrases, and now I find only the kind of matching titles and other proper nouns you would expect. Looks ready to me. Innisfree987 (talk) 20:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 09:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * - Admins, please consider restoring this article on the RD carousel and temporarily going to a count of 7. This article spent less than 10 hours on homepage / RD and has just fallen off the carousel. Greatly appreciate your consideration. Ktin (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. No guarantee on how long he will stay there though &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks much for trying Martin. Much appreciated. The article stayed on for 2 more minutes before being reverted. Please pardon my emotions seeping through the text. I worked ~5-6 hours between new years' eve and new year day, taking time away from family, to get this article to the state that it could be posted to homepage. I am sure other editors here including invested a good amount of time in working this article. That the article spent less than ~10 hours on the RD carousel is demotivating. Thanks again for attempting to restore. Much appreciated. Ktin (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If I interpret 's revert summary correctly then there were several other entries which had more reason to be re-added, i.e. other entries that spent even less time on the main page. Is that correct? How many entries would we have needed in this case to give everything 24 hours exposure? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's been 4 more RDs posted since (and it's been 23h), so the list would hypothetically be at 11.—Bagumba (talk) 08:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It's frustrating when one sees "their" nomination get less time than they think it deserves. On the positive side, this same nomination would likely have already been stale with the previous sorted post model. In the new model, this still qualified and was posted, albeit less time than you might think is fair. The issue is that there is no consensus yet on the minimum post time, or if there should even be a minimum at all. In the meantime, each poster is applying their individual best judgement, which also varies. —Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tommy Docherty

 * Comment Once more sources are cited, support.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  17:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think, with the help of a few others, that the article is well sourced now JW 1961   Talk  18:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, article looks good now! Support.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  18:47, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Quite a few uncited statements, especially in the "Later career" section. Black Kite (talk) 20:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Can you re-visit at some stage please, "Later career" tidied up with sources and some content removed, thanks.  JW 1961   Talk  21:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Black Kite (talk) 01:39, 1 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

UNAMID

 * With the state the article is in, probably not ready to post. Also, just the mission ending (with the transition period) probably does not make a good ITN story. I'd support if there is any further development, such as mission renewal or restructuring. --Tone 11:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Based on an arbitrary date. If there were to be notable consequences, reconsideration might be advisable. – Sca (talk) 13:20, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Sca. Old mandate expires, with no notable consequences as of now. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 18:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The mandate expires, so UNAMID itself expires? That is a notable consequence. It will explicitly not be replaced, and its activities are now restricted to securing its own withdrawal. Please actually read the links before voting. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support It's the end of a notable UN mission, who cares if the end date is arbitrary. The notable consequences are that the mission is ending. What more do you want? B zw ee bl  (talk • contribs) 04:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose - insufficient reader interest, article has not been updated. Levivich harass/hound 19:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roy B.B. Janis

 * Oppose needs work on the prose and referencing. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support vastly improved. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 *  Oppose  Yep, this one needs a lot of work.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  16:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment How about now? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:15, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks good now.  Great work! Support.  Tuc ker TVG   (whaddya want, loser?)  16:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Muladi

 * Oppose awards section unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:59, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ and translated the names of the award to English.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support Checks the boxes. Albertaont (talk) 00:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Alto Reed

 * Oppose too much unreferenced material in there right now. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  16:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - four fully unreferenced paragraphs is four too many. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Samuel Little

 * Support Article is in the main well sourced, though some of those sources could be added to support confirmed and suspected victims sections JW 1961   Talk  18:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Article is well written and subject is clearly notable - "involved in at least fifty murders, the largest number of proven cases for any serial killer in United States history". Died on December 30 though not December 31. Inexpiable (talk) 20:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Article is good to go. Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 20:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good from here. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: There's no source for the "Confirmed murder victims" list and the "Suspected murder victims" list is only partly referenced (the source at the end of the explanatory sentence does not have a list of victims). From a BLP point of view I feel this should be addressed - Dumelow (talk) 21:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I found a second source for the suspect list (newer page from the FBI). The Confirmed ones would appear to be those already mentioned in the body so it would be a matter of bringing references down. --M asem (t) 05:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. This might be just a visceral dislike for articles of this sort, but the long list of suspected cases struck me as hugely problematic. It feels like a discography or filmography, glorifying his work. These victims will probably have living family. Personally I'd just delete it -- any notable ones can be discussed in the text -- but I don't edit such articles at all. It certainly needs every entry individually cited to a reliable source. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:01, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The "suspected" list strikes me as an WP:UNDUE enumeration. Sure, he defined by his collective murders, but not to the extent that they need to be in a WP:FANCRUFT table of trivial data. Do not need this on the MP.—Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Aldo Andretti

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:14, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 00:57, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ronald Atkins

 * Oppose couple of citations needed there. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted, now cited Stephen 19:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Indira Joseph Venniyoor

 * Support Article looks good, if I had to comment on one thing, though, it would be to add some more referencing.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  21:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short but good for RD - I could only check the 3 English language sources, they seem fine. JW 1961   Talk  21:22, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Referenced and updated. MurielMary (talk) 21:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * -- you might have missed posting this one when you just posted Elaine McCoy and Amelia Lapeña-Bonifacio. Please can you help post. Ktin (talk) 01:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * -- Pardon the intrusion. Please can I request one of you to take a look. This one seems odd, maybe inadvertent, but, I think might be offline. Appreciate a look. Ktin (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Sorry, I can't assess this (per request below), as the key source isn't in a language I can read. The lead/infobox facts currently lack direct citations eg the year of birth. The lead could do with making clear that the two broadcasting positions mentioned are actually the same under different names. There's a lack of detail on her career, versus her childhood and personal life. Also not 100% sure on notability, to be honest -- radio news announcers have a hard time demonstrating notability; I've even seen such articles speedy tagged by new-page patrollers. I notice the two broadcasters she notes as inspiration do not appear to have articles. I don't think the two English-language articles are enough alone to fully satisfy GNG, they're very brief, and a lot of the other sources are not notability conferring. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:46, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , The lede and infobox have computed dates. Don't think we will need citations for those. Regarding foreign language sources, we consistently use them. I personally have used (and others too use) a good amount of German and occasional Spanish resources on the RD submissions. That should not preclude the article, nor should it cast questions on overall notability. That said, if you'd prefer you can use a translator such as Google translate. I ran one now, and the results are not too shabby. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, foreign language sources are fine, but someone has to check them! I can read German a little, so I tend to check those here. I would never use Google translate except to just get a quick ballpark idea of what the source might cover. Also the standards of checking necessary for a new article are higher than for an older one; anything that's survived six months here with multiple editors working on it can usually be assumed to be broadly notable. A new article can't. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am tagging whom I consider as an SME on Malayalam language / Kerala related topics and articles on WP to review the sources, particularly the ones in Malayalam.  pardon the bother -- can I request you to look at the Malayalam language sources if you have a bit. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support The article is reasonably well sourced, three of them, The Hindu, Indian Express and Mathrubhumi, are reliable sources. Regarding the quality of the article, it is a decently written one. I have suggested a few alterations, which are minor ones. --jojo@nthony (talk) 07:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks Tachs. Much appreciated. Ktin (talk) 07:54, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose per Espresso Addict. I looked at this one last night, and was struck by how little detail the career section had, for what was a 34 year career. Other than a catchphrase used to open her radio show, it's not clear from the article why she's significant. I decided to just pass it by rather than Oppose, as maybe others feel differently. But now EA has said the same thing I will echo it. If she really meets GNG, then there must be more detail available than what we're giving now. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dawn Wells

 * Weak support Figure is notable, but needs a lot of referencing.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  21:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Career & Filmography needs some more sourcing, will change to support when they are fixed JW 1961   Talk  21:24, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Lots of unsourced text in the body too. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Question: Other than the filmography (presumably), what are the other parts of this article that people think need citations? I don't see any cn tags there right now. KConWiki (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Remaining CN's have been resolved - thanks for marking.  Can someone check this? Joofjoof (talk) 19:43, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 19:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Aden airport attack

 * Oppose For now, article is a tiny stub with little to no information on the attacks themselves. Support If article is cleaned up, already 16 deaths and it's only been about an hour or two. Gex4pls (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on length and quality but support on importance. Last I saw, deaths were up to 22. --M asem (t) 17:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is in sufficient shape for posting. --M asem (t) 05:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait – Pending details, expansion of article. Guardian puts toll at 26, Reuters says 50 wounded. – Sca (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Wait per Sca. We need more details about the event.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  20:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Obvious support At least 20 dead and growing... There's some hope the Saudi ambassador was killed as well. CoronaOneLove (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's some hope the Saudi ambassador was killed? "Hope"? Seriously? - The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support altblurb now that article has been improved. Levivich harass/hound 04:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support -- this is notable and the article has been improved to the point that it is worthy of being in ITN. -- Rockstone  [Send me a message!]  05:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support obviously notable, have heard this at a midnight broadcast on my local television channel in Indonesia. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 07:29, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:10, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment. I've reduced the injuries count to >50 as latest BBC this morning states that. The AP source used for 110 is dated yesterday. I think it's better to be conservative here. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Abortion in Argentina

 * Support: once as the article has been updated. Significant coverage: The New York Times, The Guardian, CNN, NPR. --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support once article is updated This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Like gay marriage/rights, I don't think we can afford to recognize anything but the 1st country in a region to recognize abortion rights, barring other factors. --M asem (t) 17:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , why not? We also post all the recurring sports events, elections and natural disasters, not only the first ones in the respective region. And many of these are less impactful than policy decisions of this magnitude with global coverage. Support.  Sandstein   21:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that this is approach we have taking with past "social change" like gay rights/marriage. Where do we draw the line? Until all 200+ countries in the world pass such laws? Identifying the first few countries that take these key steps seems to be accepted, but beyond that, its part a trend that we don't continually need to report at ITN, unless it is something extremely significant (like Suadi Arabia and women's rights). --M asem (t) 21:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. If posted, blurb should read "Argentina becomes the third South American country …". AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:16, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Masem. This chapter in an old issue doesn't seem significantly impactful. – Sca (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Mlb96 (talk) 21:06, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support Abortion plays a big role in today's society, but this is an old issue in Argentina.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  21:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem; we can't be posting every single country that does this, even if this is rare in South America. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. This is a consequential decision and may turn the tide in other Latin American countries as well. Davey2116 (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. Similar to Arab countries making relations with Israel and maybe countries going into national lockdown, the first one to do so is significant, the third not really. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 01:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not worth recognizing. UncomfortablySmug (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support high repercussion in Latin America and a lot of coverage in all the world. The article needs to be updated before being posted. Alexcalamaro (talk) 05:41, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem.   The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:04, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle but Oppose on quality as the article is not up to scratch.-- P-K3 (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support on reader interest (there was a spike, but only 3k page views yesterday); oppose on article quality as it needs to be updated. (And yes, we can post a blurb like this for every country; the 2020 World Rally Championship was on ITN for three weeks of December, we have plenty of space.) Levivich harass/hound 18:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Now oppose as reader interest has waned and there are noms that are of more interest to readers now. This would have been a good one to post a few days ago, had the article been of sufficient quality. Too bad. Levivich harass/hound 19:10, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * we have plenty of space is not an argument to post an otherwise non-notable story. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:31, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but is a rebuttal to the argument that we can't post every country because we don't have enough space. (And anyway, I disagree with your essay. Screen real estate is a legitimate consideration for anything main page-related.) Levivich harass/hound 19:36, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying we shouldn't post every single country because we "don't have enough space", I'm saying we shouldn't post it because, much like gay marriage or lockdowns, after critical mass countries moving in a certain legislative direction is not interesting enough for the Main Page. (Also, we shouldn't stoop to the 24-hour news cycle and have suboptimal filler when nothing else (except for a really big thing in the banner) is happening; this is stale, however, and I digress.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You say "stoop" as if Wikipedia is above the news cycle, and by extension, the news media. We're actually below them. We rely on them to tell us what's happening, not the other way around. The news cycle produces much more content, of higher quality, much faster, than Wikipedia. Wikipedia would be rising to the 24-hour news cycle, not stooping. (Now I've joined you in digression.) Levivich harass/hound 04:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Agitu Ideo Gudeta

 * Support. The article is well-referenced and covers the scope of her life in due weight (IMO). Innisfree987 (talk) 05:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 10:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:49, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , pardon the intrusion, this article was on the homepage for ~13 hours. Ktin (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * who seems to be online right now. This article should be restored on the carousel in good faith. 13 hours. Ktin (talk) 01:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have restored this to the 7th item for now. What would be nice is some automated tracking of how long each RD is up for to get an idea of what the new expected dwell time is; 24 hours might not be achievable. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Paul Jr.

 * Weak support There's one citation needed tag but it should not hold up the article. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 02:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not checked in detail but the first paragraph of the Away from the track section may need better sourcing. The prose style is also very choppy with short paragraphs, a timeline feel and some informal writing. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ While both Car and Driver and (especially) Sports Illustrated are reputable sources I've added a few extra sources including a Chicago Tribune article. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I find it hard to believe that a satisfactory search for a free image for such a prominent individual has been conducted, so cannot support while the "fair use" image is in place. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you would consider a "satisfactory search", but my searching has only turned up "all rights reserved" i.e. fully copyrighted photos. Regardless, I have removed the photo from the article. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:26, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now good to go. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 19:45, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per TRM. Fair use pictures should not be used on so recent a death, when there's every prospect that someone has a free photo of him. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted now the NFC issue is resolved. Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Lorraine Monk

 * Support - referenced and updated. MurielMary (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Coin (talk) 05:39, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article in good nick. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 09:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 10:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Elaine McCoy

 * Oppose missing refs, no prose mention of her death, bare URLs. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:04, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment death is now mentioned, and I note from the guidelines on article quality for RD that "one or two "citation needed" tags may not hold up an article" therefore the missing refs shouldn't prevent this nomination from being posted. MurielMary (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. There's one remaining cn which I can't quite verify, but it's by no means critical to the article and can just be cut if others can't verify. Otherwise ready IMO. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support Looks much better than most RDs recently. Article is incredibly sourced and written.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  21:17, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, the article is well sourced. Alexcalamaro (talk) 21:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Howard J. Rubenstein

 * Weak support for such an influencer, not a lot in there, but probably adequate for RD. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 13:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Coin (talk) 05:38, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 10:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Luke Letlow

 * Support. Well-sourced short article. One of the higher-profile COVID-19 deaths of the year. BD2412  T 03:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support a bit short but fully sourced; still some editing being done but it's good enough now. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Seems good to go. Fully sourced. High profiled Covid-19 death.BabbaQ (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Josefina Echánove

 * Support. Short, but extremely well-referenced. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:11, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose several films and television appearances unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment all film and television appearances in the article are now referenced. MurielMary (talk) 09:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Article will need to be expanded before it can be ready for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 11:32, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify which part of the guideline on the quality of RD articles you consider has not been met, with regards to the guidelines here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:In_the_news#Article_quality ? TIA MurielMary (talk) 11:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , other than the filmography (set of bullets) this article is currently a stub. We have not promoted articles of a stubby nature to homepage / RD in the past. Ktin (talk) 11:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. It is under 1500 characters of prose per the DYK counter. I'd expect more on a selection of her notable film roles from reviews or similar. There isn't even a comment on her two award nominations, beyond the fact of the nominations, and those films are not listed in the filmography. Not an expert in fair-use custom here (it's a lot stricter than the UK norms), but we've often held off putting such images into articles until a few months after death, to allow a full search to be made for free images. for an expert opinion. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:58, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well yes, it seems unlikely that in the time between her death and the upload of the image that a satisfactory amount of searching and requesting for a free image has been conducted. I would oppose all the while that non-free image is there.  The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!&#33;!&#33;) 08:18, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Amelia Lapeña-Bonifacio

 * Support - Have given the article a thorough overhaul and I think it's now ready for the main page. MurielMary (talk) 04:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose citations needed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - all statements now referenced. MurielMary (talk) 10:10, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support It's good enough for the main page.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  21:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - looks like citation issues have been resolved. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 01:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Petrinja earthquake

 * For the reference, we posted the one in Zagreb in March. This one was stronger but away from Zagreb or other big cities, so the damage will likely be smaller overall. The town of Petrijna was hit hard, though. The article still needs some expansion. --Tone 14:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – Pending details. – Sca (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle. The strongest quake was reportedly even stronger than the one that hit Zagreb in 1880, which would probably make it the strongest in the country's history on record. There's a rising death toll and many buildings were damaged in the nearby cities, including Zagreb where power outages and other problems have occurred as a consequence.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – AP, BBC, Reuters update toll to seven – dozens missing. – Sca (talk) 22:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The death toll is definitely higher than the one in Zagreb, it's receiving a lot of coverage in various news outlets and the article seems referenced as well. Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Prominent coverage in UK news, article now appears of adequate quality. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posting. --Tone 08:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Pierre Cardin

 * Comment – Widespread RS coverage. – Sca (talk) 13:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb once the article is improved. He was definitely a transforming figure in his field and the 'bubble dress' that he introduced has become a standard garment worn by virtually every woman in the world.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:46, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Fashion designer seems to be a niche beyond a death blurb. Oscar de la Renta's death was not a blurb. Is there another precedent?—Bagumba (talk) 18:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Given there was only one !vote there to consider a blurb, I would not use that as a precedent here. --M asem (t) 18:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We posted a blurb for Karl Lagerfeld's death last year. I consider both Lagerfeld and Cardin to be on the top of their field. Lagerfeld owned and run influential brands, while Cardin was more influential in the style of everyday clothing. As for Oscar de la Renta, I don't think he was of the same stature as Cardin considering that his name cannot be readily associated with something like the 'bubble dress' that changed the way of clothing. --Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In any case, we are not a common law system here on Wikipedia. Each case is assessed on its own merits. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For reference, here's Lagerfeld's nomination. Certainly an extended discussion. I'll maintain my oppose here. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, once the article quality is addressed, per Kiril Simeonovski. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb He was a transforming figure in his field. Oscar de la Renta was not. I consider Pierre Cardin to be more important than Karl Lagerfeld. Tradedia talk 19:04, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support blurb, as someone who is self-admittedly NOT into fashion, this comes across as maybe one of the 5 designers I knew of... like Karl and Oscar de la Renta. Can we put this into RD and then debate blurb? Albertaont (talk) 23:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only, strongly oppose blurb. He was a fashion designer, not an influential world leader or something like that. His influence may have been significant in fashion, but it's still just the niche of fashion. 1779Days (talk) 01:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - Top of his field of work. He was a transforming figure within his field.BabbaQ (talk) 04:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not looked at the article yet, but I'd support a blurb on notability: even I'd heard of him. It's a pity we have no article on bubble dress, which currently redirects to skirt and doesn't mention Cardin. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Unclear if there's enough sourcing for a full-fledged article on the bubble dress, sadly. All I could find was, , and , and , none of which are especially detailed. Irrelevant for RD/blurb, obviously; just in case anyone was thinking about creating it. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:48, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Here is a nice recent piece on bubble dresses. I may take this up though I can’t just now unfortunately. Thank you for the references! Innisfree987 (talk) 17:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No blurb, please InedibleHulk (talk) 05:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No opinion on blurb/RD, but oppose on quality. Relies far too much on primary sources, mainly the official bio published by his fashion house. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:46, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality but blurb-worthy if quality threshold achieved as a transformative individual in the field of fashion. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb – The haute couture fame of the name notwithstanding, Cardin's passing at 98 lacks broad significance. Support RD when article deemed presentable. – Sca (talk) 13:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, a influential person in his field. The quality must be improved before posting. Alexcalamaro (talk) 20:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Revolutionized the fashion industry, needs work though. Once work is done it's ready.  Tuc ker TVG  (whaddya want, loser?)  21:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've filled all the outstanding citation tags or removed unreferenced claims if nothing found. There's a page needed tag, but has other online refs so can probably be removed. yorkshiresky (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted as RD. Black Kite (talk) 20:09, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oops. I just realised I nominated this.  this is ready. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Can you have a look at references starting from #17? i.e. 17 onwards. There is a mismatch and a mouseover does not bring in the reference, nor does clicking on those references do anything. For all practical purposes inaccessible. Ktin (talk) 20:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a not immediately obvious ref syntax error, which I have fixed. —Bagumba (talk) 02:43, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. Confirming here that the refs work good now. Ktin (talk) 03:46, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Also, there is a dead-link on #10. Tried restoring that from archive.org; but, the first available backup there is also broken (404). Ktin (talk) 20:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Copyvio I fixed the dead link mentioned above by, but looking at the contents show a WP:COPYVIO. They have been flagged in the article. Other potential violations per this report. I've left a note at Copyright problems/2021 January 1—Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Even if the dead link were live and not copyvio, I doubt it is an RS. Probably best to just replace with cn? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The Cn tag is more if you are questioning if it is verifiable. However, the concern here is not that the text isn't true, it's that the text is copied without permission.—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , Yeah, I posted that before I saw you had tagged with copyvio. I meant that, once the copyvio is resolved, we should find a source other than "Mid Century Magazine" to verify the claims the relevant text was making (if they are to be reintegrated in non-copyright-violating form). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:02, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Getting stale. – Sca (talk) 14:26, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment – Stale. Suggest close. – Sca (talk) 13:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We're generally now allowing 7d for RDs (pending Wikipedia_talk:In_the_news) —Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: H. Jack Geiger

 * have you got a RS for the date of death? It says Dec 18 in the body (which would make this nomination stale) but in the lead Dec 28. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:17, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The NYTimes article affirms the 28th. --M asem (t) 16:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Masem, I see that now. . Fantastic work with this one Innisfree987! &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:22, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, thank you very much Martin! And thank you Masem for the date check. Much appreciated! Innisfree987 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Adele Rose

 * Weak oppose It's well referenced but very stubby, could support if expanded a wee bit JW 1961   Talk  14:54, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment has been expanded as more obituaries published in the last few hours. MurielMary (talk) 19:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support as sufficiently expanded for RD JW 1961   Talk  21:41, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Currently trying to expand, there's another reliable obituary in The Guardian just out. (There's more detail in Manchester Evening News, but I'm not sure how reliable that is after it split from the Guardian group.) Her other two series might well be notable despite the lack of articles. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:50, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , An article that was marked 'ready' before this article is still pending a posting. Ktin (talk) 02:37, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was working from the bottom, per recent exhortations as well as past practice. This was marked ready before I commented; I don't track the order of marking as ready, there are better uses of time. I never post anything without reading it carefully and at least spot-checking the sources, which often results in substantive editing and a lot of nitpicking and back & forth. Black Kite posted several while I was working on this one; I don't know why they didn't post yours. Which is it? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:48, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Indira Joseph Venniyoor. Black Kite posted the one before this and the one after this. Ktin (talk) 02:51, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Romell Broom

 * Reluctant support don't keen on the idea of promoting these individuals but RDs are RDs. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I always find it interesting when looking over the RD page that the average article on a criminal tends to be so much better than that of artists, politicians, businesspeople. Articles on sports people tend to be either one-line sub-stubs or mammoth unsourced musings - Dumelow (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I must admit, I'm sad that Barbara Rose, a life full of interest and achievement, is likely to be dropped off for this. Espresso Addict (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Probably because criminals are a more sensitive subject, so uncited content gets removed quickly. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:08, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Short but well referenced article JW 1961   Talk  14:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul-Heinz Dittrich
Posted - Dumelow (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. Good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks. We could have let the carousel go to 7 for a bit here. Ktin (talk) 11:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Ktin, the displaced RD K. C. Jones had been up for 23 hours which I consider sufficient to not break the guideline. I appreciate people's opinions on this vary and am more than happy if another admin wants to re-add Jones - Dumelow (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , fair enough. I guess I have been greedily hoping for 36 hours (or at least 24 hours). Anyways, onwards and upwards. Thanks for your note and for all that you do. Ktin (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fou Ts'ong

 * Comment. Just a very quick note, one of the refs is currently showing as undefined. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * On further reading, I agree with that the tone is too promotional. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Short but to the point. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:01, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Rather a promotional tone at present. Hopefully someone can neutralise it a bit. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:19, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Care to elaborate? I think this article presents the information in RS in a very neutral way.Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  05:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I find sentences like Noted by The New York Times for his "sensitive ear for color", "elusive gift of melody", and his "impetuous spirit", Fou was one of the first Chinese-born pianists to achieve international fame and A performing and teaching career that took him throughout the world continued, and he was acclaimed not only for his interpretations of Chopin, but many other composers, including Haydn, Mozart concerning. The NYT bit in particular strikes me as undue, and reads rather like album liner notes. There is also the (currently error-flagged) quote, apparently from a primary source, describing him as one of the greatest pianists of our times. In my view, that would have to be backed up by a secondary source to be of appropriate weight. (It is also not especially informative; what makes one a "great" pianist, in context?) I would also like to know what persecuted means in the personal life section, but that's obviously not a promo issue. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 06:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * couldnt disagree more with you.It wasn’t just some random people who said these things; they were music critics from the world’s biggest newspapers. Look at the GA Radu Lupu for example. Also the quote from Argerich, Fleisher, and Lupu is just their opinion and their declaration. But since they are among the most important musicians of their generation, it’s a very notable thing to include. Also,if you look into it, Fou’s parents faced political persecution by the CCP during the Cultural Revolution, leading them to die by suicide. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  06:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to alleviate your concerns; please let me know if this suffices. I still disagree with the view that this article's tone was promotional to begin with, but I will happily compromise, especially if it means not killing this article's chances of being featured in RD. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  22:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My promo concerns have been addressed. Sourcing looks good too, although I don't read Polish and so am unable to evaluate some sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The BBC has deigned to notice his passing now, though the Guardian is still silent, so I'll have a look and see if I can improve further. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)


 * as far as I can see, there are only three Polish-language sources in the article - and they all serve to verify his death from the coronavirus. Zingarese talk  ·  contribs  01:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I wasn't suggesting they were suspect; I was just noting I was unable to evaluate them myself. Certainly did not mean to imply otherwise. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Zingarese, Espresso Addict, and I have been over this with a fine-toothed comb in the past few hours and I think it's ready to go. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 05:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Dear and, thank you so much for your help with this article. I appreciate it so much! Zingarese  talk  ·  contribs  06:45, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted despite being a supporter, as no-one objected. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Martin Lambie-Nairn

 * Weak oppose a few unreferenced claims. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 18:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:33, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Looks like the claims have been referenced now. yorkshiresky (talk) 09:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:51, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Armando Manzanero

 * Oppose tagged and needs lots of referencing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 18:13, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, per The Rambling Man. This is a Grammy winner so if it gets sourced I could change my oppose to a support. TuckerTVG (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Once the quality issues have been resolved, support. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Mahinder Watsa

 * Weak oppose I'm seeing "earned him accolades and awards" and then one minor award listed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Yuichiro Hata

 * Support satis. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:53, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Robin Jackman

 * Support much improved. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support decently referenced article, suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  12:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 13:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Phil Niekro

 * Support sourcing looks good thanks to Muboshgu's efforts. The fourteen navboxes at the bottom are silly, but not a reason to oppose this. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 21:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A bit wacky his photo has him as a Yankee, but (unfortunately) that's not a barrier for posting. Nohomersryan (talk) 21:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , don't hate on the best franchise in sports. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support adequate for ITN. Good to go! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brodie Lee

 * Comment - One cn tag, but very good article. I'm ready to change it to support as soon as this small issue is resolved.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 03:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe I've dealt with these. GaryColemanFan (talk) 04:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Too damn young to burn up, but too damn good to fade away. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And it's gone already. Who cares if it's a very good article that won 8-0, Karima Baloch, who wasn't even notable in life, needs her week for one Support vote. I knew the wrestling curse wasn't over, never getting fooled again. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , no need to speak ill about someone, particularly folks who are no longer here. That said, your larger point is valid. This new mode of posting will NOT work when inflow (new RDs) and outflow (posts onto homepage) are not roughly synchronized (rate of inflow is equal to the rate of outflow), unless Admins and Editors work the articles from the bottom of the stack.
 * I'm not speaking ill. As a human, I feel for her survivors. But as a historical figure, our editors only noticed her death, it is what it is. Anyway, I featured him on my Talk Page. Never getting stale there, rubes! InedibleHulk (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is in extraordinarily poor taste to dance on the grave of an activist while comparing her unfavourably to a professional wrestler. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And it is in extraordinarily poor taste to accuse other posters of 'dancing on someone's grave' when they have done nothing of the kind. Please do not assume bad faith. Effy Midwinter (talk) 18:37, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing. To be clearer, I have no feelings for or against Baloch or her work, never heard of either before this. But the article objectively has less information, had way fewer editors working on it for a much briefer time and got less support here than Huber's life story, which is six days more recently in the news. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just had the same thing happen with Shamsur Rahman Faruqi and Sugathakumari. Good on User:Espresso Addict for restoring the former. Maybe given the huge backlog, Admins restore RDs until Brodie Lee and spill over into the third line which imo is not a big deal particularly because we have a reduced set of news blurbs currently.
 * Ktin (talk) 03:14, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I doubt there's consensus for more than 7 items. Personally I'd nuke all the stale news (which is arguably all of it) and fill with RDs imitating the German "Kürzlich Verstorbene" system, but I know I won't get consensus for that. (Probably best to take this to the talk page?) Espresso Addict (talk) 03:22, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. Just took it to the talkpage. My vote is to temporarily restore all RDs until Brodie Lee and spill over into three lines. There is sufficient space and we have some space created by the news blurbs which are down to 3 currently. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks. Just took it to the talkpage. My vote is to temporarily restore all RDs until Brodie Lee and spill over into three lines. There is sufficient space and we have some space created by the news blurbs which are down to 3 currently. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:36, 28 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. BD2412  T 05:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, you know what that means.  starship .paint  (talk) 08:34, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go, probably one of the best wrestling bios I've seen nominated here. Consider nominating for WP:GA. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ho-ly shit! Ho-ly shit! Seriously, call The Signpost, if even The Rambling Man is marking out, that's a sign of something alright! InedibleHulk (talk) 09:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my standards for the main page are high, no shame in that. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:07, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nothing to be too proud of, either, this bio met all seven other judges' standards. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about being proud, just doing the job properly. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No pride, no shame, pure unanimous propriety. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per all the above.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * could you check Shamsur Rahman Faruqi & George Blake as they were marked good to go as well but appear to have been overlooked?  Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:10, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jim McLean

 * Comment Quite a lot uncited in there as of now, will check back later. RIP, a great manager!  JW 1961   Talk  21:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose a few unreferenced sentences in there, but otherwise in good condition. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:08, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Added a couple of refs for the awards. I can’t see anything contentious now.yorkshiresky (talk) 09:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Blake

 * Oppose a few cn tags and unreferenced paragraphs Scaramouche33 (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * it's good to go Scaramouche33 (talk) 04:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support All pretty much sourced now, I think. Black Kite (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Far, far better than many RDs, and it looks sourced to me. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:21, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support article looks incredibly sourced and incredibly written. Good work as always, Bruzaholm. Tuck (come say hi!) — Preceding undated comment added 03:45, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:44, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barbara Rose

 * Support A lot of work has been done in the article. I think is ready. Alexcalamaro (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Shaping up well, but not ready yet, imo. There needs to be more chronological detail; where was she between 1985 and her death, for example? ""ABC Art", her influential 1965 essay, outlined the main philosophical currents of minimalism." isn't really sourced; the article discusses what was in the essay, but not what/how/who it influenced (and what does "philosophical currents" even mean?) There are too many journal/other writing publications; this should be slimmed to the most influential. The filmography comes out of nowhere... her film making is mentioned in the lead but nowhere described. The lead needs filling out. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Noted, but could you please tone it down when critiquing the language I've chosen? Calling my wording "pretentious" is overkill, especially when the article directly describes Alain Robbe-Grillet and Ludwig Wittgenstein, two philosophers, as key to Rose's analysis. Perhaps the wording wasn't apt, but it was in good faith. You can feel free to trim the publications as you see fit—I am not wedded to including any of them. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 00:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Such (am I allowed flowery?) language is only ever permissible in the mouth of a expert, as a direct quotation. Apologies for offending you, I'd assumed it was in the article before expansion. I can't readily trim the pubs as I am not an expert in American 20th-century art history criticism. Google Scholar citations suggest that three of her books, "ABC art" plus an essay on Orlan that isn't listed get significant citations. I doubt I'd be popular if I slimmed it to that... Espresso Addict (talk) 01:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Go ahead and do it. Publication lists, especially when extensive, are, IMO, rarely that useful. I am far from an expert either; I think Scholar cites are as fair a criterion as any. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've slashed the non-books; let's see if it sticks. I usually include all (co-)authored books and all edited books that don't look ephemeral (conference proceedings), but I mainly work on scientists and I know non-science fields often publish more by book/monograph than journal. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:57, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support enough there for RD. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Reginald Foster

 * Comment. The tone is rather informal, is all the detail necessary? At minimum needs sources for a couple of paragraphs. Could do with a proper publications section. I do like the Vatican Radio programme :) Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above, ita vero. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 18:09, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Tony Rice

 * Oppose, per nom. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:05, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose long way to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:46, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barry Lopez

 * Weak oppose a handful of citations needed (in the bibliography section) but the rest is decent. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The going requirement at ITN for citations for the mere existence of a book (not its awards) strikes me as overkill, especially when authority control exists. I'll try to find some, but really—the existence of a book, which can be quickly verified by the simplest of Google searches, is not something that requires cn. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not how it works. And I didn't add all the tags.  Cheers.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 17:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Well, in any event, they're now addressed. And I know that's not how it works—I said "the going requirement". I disagree with "how it works", because I think encouraging editors to add citations to Worldcat is very silly indeed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't. Do you think our readers know what "Authority control" means??  Good work on the article. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 20:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support my concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:29, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Posting-Admins, please consider expanding the carousel count to 7 when posting this article on WP:ITNRD the article that will be popping off has been there for ~7 hours. Ktin (talk) 18:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 02:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , and, we could not handle the above request of leaving the carousel at 7 for a bit? Disappointing. This model will not work if we do not work the postings from the bottom of the stack, particularly when the postings as well as the inflow is 'bursty'. Ktin (talk) 02:51, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Shamsur Rahman Faruqi

 * Support Everything's referenced Scaramouche33 (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks just about fine. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 11:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Danny Hodge

 * Weak oppose death not covered in prose. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 19:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support added "death" section to article (could use expansion if someone has source for cause of death etc) JW 1961   Talk  21:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's an explanation of COD in the source you added. So you're admitting that you didn't bother to read it?  See my comment below about formatting puffery, yet another example of the fraud committed around here in the name of "article quality". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  06:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , The source I added specifically states "While the cause of death isn't known yet"! Yes I did read it or I wouldn't have asked for further explanations. Please don't accuse other editors of fraud!  JW 1961   Talk  17:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I agree with JW's statement above. Perhaps not my place to be saying, but, please be polite to your fellow editors. I would also recommend that you apologize to JW on their talk page. Ktin (talk) 18:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose As usual, folks appear to be judging this solely on account of formatting puffery. As a biography, it's quite incomplete and chronologically all over the place.  It reads like a semi-random collection of facts which just happen to be backed by sources. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  06:42, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Missing a considerable amount about his government work, infobox photo and "Other" classification beg a few questions. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Soumaïla Cissé

 * oppose for now. Two cn tags. Personal life could use a little expansion, also more info on his abduction and release would be nice. Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: K. C. Jones

 * Oppose still under-referenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , this one has been worked on, though admittedly not by me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is the coaching record (for example) from Basketball-reference.com? If so, it appears to be incomplete e.g. where is the 1972–73 season? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 18:07, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just passing through. 1972-73 was his season coaching in the American Basketball Association, so that’s a different league from the rest of the table. I guess it wouldn’t hurt to include that season, too. It depends on how that section is defined in the article. Sites like basketball-reference offer combined NBA/ABA stats as well as stats for each league. Zagal e jo^^^ 00:08, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1972–73 ABA stats are now in the table.—Bagumba (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good work. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Referencing is sufficient now.—Bagumba (talk) 10:22, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Michael Alig

 * Weak oppose a couple of unref'd claims in there. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Armenia protests
The article kind of updated to this week. I've not edited much here, but post on the Talk page,can someone help to update?2A02:2A57:173D:0:3C22:E327:9689:F0F2 (talk) 16:37, 25 December 2020 (UTC) I did a little update and posted in the talk page the links. The part about Nikol rejecting I didn't find, but I didn't look hard enough.2A02:2A57:173D:0:3C22:E327:9689:F0F2 (talk) 17:05, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please fix your nomination, the instructions on how to properly nominate an article are given on this page above. Gotitbro (talk) 18:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Nashville bombing

 * Oppose. No article. Even if there was, this were no fatalities. Thankfully only 3 injuries and property damage. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 16:27, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am still not convinced this rises to level of what we usually post at ITN. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 00:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Closed per WP:SNOW WaltCip''' (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and reopened. There is an article and there is clearly at least one death so far. While it might not reach consensus, to WP:SNOW is pre-mature. Also at this point the oppose is also based on assertions which have changed. Albertaont (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This is in the news and the article is in good shape. -- Tavix ( talk ) 00:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The only reason this is in the news is because it happened in the US. Had this happened in say, Germany, everyone would have ignored it. Only 3 people were injured, and to the best of our knowledge, there are no confirmed fatalities so far. This is not important on an international scale, and should be put under WP:SNOW. The Image Editor (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We have had a lively debate on ITN when similar attacks happened in France and Austria a few months ago, I dont recall what the final outcome was, but to say "Had this happened in say, Germany, everyone would have ignored it." is not correct if we just look back at ITN. Albertaont (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Those discussions ended in no consensus, and were not posted. That gives even more reason for this to NOT post this onto ITN. I will admit, that the Germany comparison was in bad faith, but I still think that this doesn’t even approach the threshold of international news. If this somehow gets posted, I would argue that it would dramatically lower the standard of what is ITN worthy. But then again, who am I to judge. The Image Editor (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: definitely on the front pages of many news agencies, even outside the US. Singapore, UK, Germany, Brazil.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 01:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: The building collapse makes it front page worthy. Unknown-Tree (talk) 02:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait: Too much is unknown at present, such as whether there were any fatalities. TompaDompa (talk) 03:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is still being considered as a domestic situation, and there is at most one possible death, typically far lower than what we would post. --M asem (t) 04:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We don't have enough information currently to judge the significance of the attack and so far it seems like a small-scale incident. Plus, if we were to post this, then we would be setting the bar too low for these types of events Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until we know if people were killed & if it was a bombing by a terrorist group. If it was a lone-wolf attack in which there were no deaths or only one, it's not important enough for ITN. Jim Michael (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose trivia. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Wait  – Puzzling & mysterious, thus interesting, but lacking in general significance – though that could change if the investigation uncovers evidence of terrorism. – Sca (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Law enforcement seeks "person of interest."  – Sca (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I got it right the first time. WaltCip- (talk)  02:40, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Is it in the news? Yes, globally (per links posted above). Are readers interested in it? Yes: nearly 80,000 page views on day 1 of the article . Is the article of sufficient quality? Yes. Therefore: post it. It doesn't matter what country it happened in. BTW, the significance is in the mysteriousness of the incident, the size of the bomb, and the widespread AT&T telecom outage, which is now in its second day. I would suggest maybe an alternate blurb like "A vehicle explosion in downtown Nashville, Tennessee results in three injuries and widespread damage and outages." Levivich harass/hound 04:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It does matter where it happened. This is the US, and I apologize to the rest of the world but we're basically idiots here when it comes to gun ownership and stuff like this. This is stuff that happens far too frequently here that, unless we're taking major death and destruction, we skip over these topics because they are "routine" for the US. Now, sure, maybe there's something in the investigation thta proves out something far more sinister than what currently seems as a typical US whack job to prove worthwhile to post, but this isn't anything damaging like the Boston Marathon bombings. --M asem (t) 06:43, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There is nothing routine about this RV full of explosives that detonated in downtown Nashville after blaring a siren and audio warning to evacuate the area. The US hasn't had a vehicle bomb attack like this in ... I don't remember the last one. There is nothing routine about grounded flights, 911 being down, mobile phones, and landlines being down, in a three-state area, for two days. The US hasn't had an outage like that in ... even the California wildfires didn't produce outages of that scale; I don't remember the last time all communications were down in such a large area. An attack doesn't have to be the Boston Marathon bombings--the second-worst terrorist attack in US history, probably--in order to be worthy of ITN. And honestly, editors' subjective personal opinions about the importance of the event should not matter at all; 80,000 readers are interested, but a dozen Wikipedia editors think it's routine, so we don't list it? How does that make sense? The only things that should matter are: (1) Do readers want the information? (2) Do we have the information? Levivich harass/hound 07:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is only of trivial interest because it happened in the US. It has no long-term impact, it is of extremely limited notability, and is only making news because besides Covid, there's nothing else for the US press to get on top of, since Trump has at last become a boring sideshow.  This is almost unencyclopedic.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To add, the latest story on this is that the person of interest, believed to be the person that died in the incident, had paranoia over 5G (not unlike what we've already seen previously in the UK with 5G towers being burned down) and may have specifically targetted the local AT&T building because of that paranoia, and not so much as a "act of terrorism". Making this even less of an appropriate story to post here. --M asem  (t) 16:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose If my memory of unprecedented developing crimes serves me faithfully (and I've seen dozens), our editors can't handle the information! Not just kidding, either. Wikipedia is historically inaccurate (often prejudicially so) while investigations continue. InedibleHulk (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose there's lots of facets to this particular posting debate that have already been hashed out above, and in my view, the mysteriousness doesn't add to notability here. It's not an impactful mystery like missing people or backwards trials, it's "why did a bomb go off with nobody around", and the confusion over who and what and why in this case makes it less (not more) notable. We don't know what's happening, we don't know what the blurb really should be to be accurate. If the AT&T outages last any longer, because 911 is still down the last I heard, then we could consider posting that: "large parts of Tennessee and Kentucky are without cellular power or 911 access after bla bla bla" is an unusual and newsworthy blurb with widespread human impact. Kingsif (talk) 09:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – for now — Starting to look as though a solitary IT person, one Anthony Q. Warner, blew himself up. – Sca (talk) 19:24, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Post-close comment: Half a million page views in the first six days of this article's existence, but ITNC !voters know better what's of interest to readers? This is another example of ITNC participants, en masse, putting their own personal, subjective views about what is or is not "important" above what is of interest to readers. This article is of more interest to our readers than everything else on ITN right now combined. Levivich harass/hound 19:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Metekel massacre

 * Oppose on quality way too many red links,plus a cn tag. Weak oppose otherwise, the death toll is pretty high, but the Tigray conflict is already in the ongoing section and if the massacre is part of the conflict,then I don't think a separate blurb is needed Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:02, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed: red links, cn . The sources mostly describe this as independent of the Tigray conflict. Geographically and politically, it's a zone of a separate region. Boud (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, weak support. I still think that the article is too short for a blurb,but hopefully it will expanded in the next few days Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, but the blurb needs to be changed. The massacre, with a death toll of around 100, is significantly more important than the army's response. Jim Michael (talk) 12:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree on changing the blurb. I've proposed an Alternative blurb above. The federal army's response is significant. We (sources on en.Wikipedia articles) have absolutely no information so far as to whether the 42 killings by the ENDF were necessary defence or extrajudicial executions (revenge). There are strongly opposing media narratives in the Ethiopian situation right now so including "both" sides is the most NPOV. Boud (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The much bigger massacre earlier did not go through mostly on the grounds of poor article quality and the main topic already being in ongoing. Seeing similar issues in here as well especially with the article as a barebones stub. Gotitbro (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Metekel conflict & Metekel massacre are both very new articles which have neither been nominated before, nor been in ongoing. Are you thinking of the Tigray conflict & one of the massacres that's part of that? Jim Michael (talk) 12:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am talking about the Mai Kadra massacre that was nominated some time ago. Gotitbro (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's part of the Tigray conflict & happened several weeks earlier in a different region of Ethiopia. The Tigray conflict being in ongoing isn't relevant to this nomination, because the Metekel conflict has never been in ongoing. Jim Michael (talk) 15:34, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support It's a large-scale massacre and the current version of Metekel massacre is sufficiently developed to encourage new editors to contribute. Warning: as attention to the article grows, it's very likely to be (temporarily) vandalised or POVed, based on the last few weeks' experience with Tigray conflict and Mai Kadra massacre. Several editors (mostly IPs, but not only), are absolutely sure that the perpetrators are X and the victims are Y (or vice versa) and anything that is nuanced and matches sources is false news written by naive editors. See this Ethiopian media analysis for a likely explanation. Boud (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose An encyclopedia article needs some degree of organization and flow. This reads like a twitter feed.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not really newsworthy, police clash with bandits all the time. The massacre itself is the part that’s newsworthy. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 19:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's an argument against the original blurb, not against the posting of the article. An alternative blurb is listed. There's an empty spot for altblurb2. Boud (talk) 01:38, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the massacre that's the much more notable event. What should the alt blurb be? Jim Michael (talk) 10:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There was already one alternative blurb, but since the reaction of the authorities is considered less important than the massacre itself, I've proposed ALT II above, which is While I think that the authorities killing 42 suspects is significant, we have no info on whether this was a minimal use of force or extrajudicial executions, or a mix of the two, and the broader context - an ongoing armed conflict in this zone - seems more relevant for the blurb. Boud (talk) 11:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: John Edrich

 * Weak oppose for now. As you said, the article needs a lot of referencing. It is a good contender though. Tuck (talk page) — Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced material. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * -- Are you working on this one? Ktin (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: Ivry Gitlis

 * Comment – FYI, Ger. Wiki RD: "Ivry Gitlis (98), israelisch-französischer Violinist († 24. Dezember)." Also listed in Fr. WP's Nécrologie section. – Sca (talk) 14:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, neither of those Wikipedia's bother with referencing, so hardly good examples. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose mostly unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:09, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * -- are you working on this one? Ktin (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

RD: John Cremona

 * Comment. Currently an undersourced stub. Are you planning to work on it? Espresso Addict (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) UK-EU trade deal

 * Oppose update insufficient and unreferenced. What exactly does the deal entail? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 16:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Documents such as this EU draft of 440 pages indicate that the details cover hundreds of pages, as one would expect. We can't expect to cover the fine print and the minutiae of ratification and implementation.  The key point that is all over the news now is that the deal has been agreed at last. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course not, but we do reasonably expect some degree of high-level agreement points, stuff that I expect that the BBC and other good sources will have summarized in the next few hours. (this is similar to how we have summarizies of the key points of the massive spending bill in the US Congress in the press some hours after it was first published). We can wait for WP to be updated with that. --M asem (t) 16:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't recall asking for "fine print and minutiae", but when I looked at the article, it said (unreferenced) "a deal had been agreed", but gave no insight whatsoever as to the nature of the deal. Hardly encyclopedic, is it?  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 19:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've been watching the news coverage and it seems clear that there will be over a thousand pages of dense legal text which will be gone through now by teams of lawyers, lobbyists and politicians. They will then give their various opinions and Laura Kuenssberg just said that "a tally of the wins and losses may take years to settle".  For example, while we've heard a lot about fish, it turns out that chips are big deal for some too.  Or is that really just small potatoes?  Anyway, the part which I enjoyed most was Larry's ferocious rush at a deal of his own! Andrew🐉(talk) 20:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose only that we should have details of what has been agreed to in the deal at this point in the article, as per the sources, this isn't the end stage and more negotiations are still to come on less critical matters, but this prevents pending severe issues that were to have occurred if no deal at all had been reached by 1 Jan. --M asem (t) 16:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's best to wait until the specifics about the trade deal are released to the public so that the article can be properly updated. However, I think creating a separate article would be better Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * support the new article has been properly updated Scaramouche33 (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looks like this isn't exactly final yet, let's wait till it is actually signed. Gotitbro (talk) 18:27, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The article may need a little more cooking, but I think the agreement is news today.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough 21:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC).


 * I agree the news is notable right now, but with a single-sentence update which makes no real mention of the overall themes in the agreement, it's far from an encyclopedic update to post to the main page. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until it has actually been ratified and we know it will actually enter into force. Yakikaki (talk) 22:36, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Guys, if the last four years of news have taught us anything, it's that an agreement isn't final until it's final. No one has a damn clue what this deal means yet. Can we not wait until we at least get said clue? WaltCip- (talk)  22:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I also find the proposed image highly unsuitable; the recent traffic jams are due to corona restrictions and have nothing to do with this article. Yakikaki (talk) 22:43, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not true. There were massive queues before the borders were closed down as hauliers rushed to get jobs done before a potential no-deal Brexit scuppered things.  But the image is not appropriate because it conflates two separate stories.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:45, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle, this is a huge deal in terms of scope and absolute numbers. I don't feel it appropriate to wait for formal ratification in this instance since it it expected to be put into operation on a provisional basis ahead of that. OTOH the text of the deal has not yet been released, all we have now are some headline summaries of some key issues. In the absence of actual details just yet I can't see how a true substantive update can be made, there are bound to be controversies that emerge once to text is in the public domain. 3142 (talk) 00:17, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Summary versions of the deal are online here and here and these seem to be the main primary sources for press analysis and comment so far. As we're locked down, I may spend some time today looking through them but, right now, I'm going out for some exercise.  Brr... Andrew🐉(talk) 07:40, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – in principle, pending expansion of article (by homebound Brits?). Coverage abundant, significance obvious. Alas, the fact that today is Christmas may retard editorial progress. Cheers! – Sca (talk) 14:01, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ninety-two footnotes, 4,200 words as of 22:30. – Sca (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support I don't see why this isn't obviously ITN material. It's in the news, it was in the news before it happened and will be in the news for some time longer. Banedon (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the update comprises "On 24 December, the parties announced that a deal had been reached.[81]" and the article still says "This section summarises the sides' statements of their respective positions at the beginning of negotiations. It may be that these will change in a final agreement (if concluded)."  so supporting an article that is clearly inadequately updated is the reason why this obviously isn't ITN material at this time.   The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Coverage continues – two current sources added above. – Sca (talk) 14:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Coverage and notability are not being questioned here. The paucity of the "update" is the issue.  The article hasn't even been properly updated for the passage of events and yet people are still supporting it?!  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Compris. – Sca (talk) 14:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For example, BBC has a quick summary points that would be an excellent way to start off a section to get it ready to be posted without having to read any of the actual trade deal itself or engage in OR of what's important. Took 2 minutes to find that when looking. --M asem (t) 14:22, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's figgy-pudding-lag? – Sca (talk) 14:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Brexitapathy. I don't think most of us really care, it's a deal which won't suit a single person, so no-one can be arsed to actually even bother to update the article.  But there you go, it still gets support despite that.  Perhaps ITN is even more borked than we all think.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * P'r'aps we're all borking up the wrong tree here. – Sca (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Update Many news sources report that the full text has been published now but few of them provide a link. But I've chased that down and here's the relevant page at the European Commission.  I find that we have a page specifically for the agreement and editors have been busy updating that today.  I have accordingly updated the nomination, expanding the blurb to link to the agreement as the highlighted article. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Kudos to who seem to be the main editors working on this currently.  Perhaps they can comment on what more there is to do and whether there are other important links. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It needs ratifying by the EU nations and the U.K Parliament, the EU are meeting to agree a provisional application so that it can come into force on 1st January which will happen in the EU Parliament on 31st December and the U.K parliament are meeting to vote on implementing the agreement on the 30 December.


 * Treaty Links
 * See the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement
 * (Under external links)


 * The article has been updated to reflect the current status.


 * ChefBear01 (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support — It's in the news, the article is of sufficient quality, and while it doesn't get any pageviews, that's because it's new and barely linked. However, the spike in pageviews of Brexit demonstrates reader interest. So, it fulfills ITN's purposes. Post it. Levivich harass/hound 04:16, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't fulfil ITN's purpose of providing information readers will be looking for, i.e. it just says a deal has been done. Even the more specific article just highlights which topics were covered in the agreement, but fundamentally not how each of those topics were resolved and agreed upon which is precisely the information readers want to read.  That "a deal has been done" is all very well, but as an encyclopedia, we should be capable of summarising the key aspects of the deal (the EU managed to do that within a couple of hours of the agreement). In other words: no-one is looking to Wikipedia to see if a deal has been done, we all know that.  We want to know what the deal means. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:57, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * (This is moot now as it's been posted, but I only noticed this reply today.) I think readers will hear about the Brexit deal in the news, and then go to Wikipedia not to learn about the deal, but to learn about Brexit. The latest information about the deal is provided by the media. The background information is where Wikipedia is extremely useful. The article about the deal provides background info on the deal (as does the Brexit article). And the uptick in Brexit pageviews supports this theory that readers hear about something in the news and then come to Wikipedia for the background information. Levivich harass/hound 04:07, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It's great that an actual article was made for the agreement, however, currently the article only mentions areas covered by the agreement. I'm assuming that our readers will mostly be interested in the specifics. So a basic overview for each area would be a nice edition. But the document itself is 1200 pages!! Doesn't any news outlet actually talk about the specifics of the agreement so that editors can use them instead? Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:02, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Be careful what you wish for. Once you get into the weeds of the detail, you find that there is indeed hundreds of pages of it.  I took a look at the fisheries detail, for example.  The press and politicians talk of a headline figure of 25% but that doesn't seem to appear in the document or its annexes.  Instead, you have a huge table of quotas by species and year.  So, for example, the quota for the Blue Shark goes 99.9% to the EU.  Why does the UK get only 0.1% and how was that figure arrived at?  It's not clear.  What about other sharks like the Great White Shark?  Are they included in the category "Deep-sea sharks" which goes 100% to the EU?  It's not clear.  What about whales?  It doesn't say.  What about scallops, which actually caused a minor war in 2012?  It doesn't say.  My impression is that it's mostly business as usual with a new fudge factor being added to the spreadsheet that is used by the bureaucrats that try to control the quotas.  That's the main take-home message – that there won't be a massive no-deal shock to the system on January 1 – just lots of fiddly adjustments. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:36, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the EU released a three-page summary of changes a few days ago, it was quite straight forward, however no-one can be bothered to update even the new article to reflect this. Frankly the article as it stands is not helpful at all as all we know is "a deal was done" and it covered "a lot of things" but we have absolutely no idea of the impact of the agreement on those "lots of things".  All we have is "Brexit deal was done" and that's not helpful to any of our readers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support now that I've updated the article with a summary of the agreement's actual contents. Proposed altblurb above.  Sandstein   14:42, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Altblurb – Looks reasonable. Still timely. – Sca (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph Bachelder III

 * Comment. Folks, pardon the multiple notifications on this one. Can I request a pair of eyes on this one? The article has a very limited runway before it goes stale. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 22:12, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Checking again to see if someone might be interested in giving this article a look. Getting late here, but, can be around for a bit in case any edits are needed. Else, this is good to go imo. Ktin (talk) 05:27, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good to go. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , pardon the intrusion. This article will fall out of this page in ~5 hours from now. Greatly appreciate your attention in posting this one to homepage / RD before it falls out. Ktin (talk) 19:05, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. All looks in order. Innisfree987 (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks Martin. Ktin (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Rebecca Luker

 * Support. Looks good to me; I just added a cn to one paragraph without citations, but none of it's controversial so I'm not too worried. Would be nice to have a bit more critical commentary on her performances, but that's not going to prevent me from supporting this. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 21:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Awards, filmography, and discography still need sources. IMDb, Discogs, and Broadwayworld.com are considered unreliable. Joofjoof (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the awards section. Joofjoof (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seeing a lot of citation and maintenance tags that need to be fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 05:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Leslie West

 * Comment. A lot of referencing is needed. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A lot of info is uncited, including entire paras and most of the discography. Gotitbro (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) South African COVID strain causing severe illness in young people has spread to Britain

 * Snow close on so many levels: (i) we already have COVID in the infobox, (ii) the evidence in anecdotal and (iii) its migration to the UK is not particularly important to the rest of the world. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose while it is actually somewhat notable, its duplicated. --Hurricane Tracker 495 21:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Kernowite

 * Strong support on notability, Strong oppose on quality. While this is a rare occurrence and normally would be ITN worthy, the article in question has 57 words and only two references. The article is a stub if I’ve ever seen one and honestly, I don’t see it getting up to scratch. The Image Editor (talk) 16:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not so sure on the significance. I don't have any knowledge of mineralology but this November 2020 International Mineralogical Association list seems to show 43 new minerals discovered in 2020 and 110 in 2019? - Dumelow (talk) 17:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment struck, apparently not as rare as I thought. Have requested expert assistance at the relevant WP. Often a nomination leads to improvement in article quality. Mjroots (talk) 17:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Minerals, unlike elements, are a dime a dozen (see Category:Minerals by element for example). Small variations in chemical make up and crystalline structure are sufficient for a "new" mineral, where as elements are very limited to what allowable organization of protons, neutrals and electrons can be sustained/stable for at least a few seconds. --M asem (t) 17:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Masem. We did not report the equally publicized discovery of Petrovite in Russia last month (1) and do not even have an article for it. It's worth noting that the Commission on New Minerals and Mineral Names approved 121 new minerals in 2015 alone. Literally the only ITN claim here would be based on the fact that British geology is better studied than most. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Basically an "and finally" article.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. It's a cute story that would make a fun DYK if expansion to their minimum size were warranted by the sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose How many new minerals are discovered every year? a dozen? a hundred? CoronaOneLove (talk) 06:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Sugathakumari

 * Weak oppose couple of unsourced sentences or paragraphs. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , greetings! Please can I request you to have a relook for this one? Happy to make any edits if still pending. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support everything is now sourced. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced including numerous awards. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , greetings! Please can I request you to have a relook? Happy to make any edits if still pending referencing. Ktin (talk) 04:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , pardon the intrusion. Please can you have a look when you have a moment. This article is ready to go to the homepage / RD imo. Ktin (talk) 18:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I went in and filled the CN tags and removed the yellow boxes. If folks see any other missing ref / citation, let me know and I will have this covered later tonight. Trimmed the awards in the infobox. This is good to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Circling back on this one. I think this is good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Not checked the sourcing but on a quick glance the tone needs work in places (esp. her death, the Abhaya material) and it's not been updated for tense throughout. The details on her notable relatives could do with pruning a bit. The awards in the infobox need pruning to the most important. Need to go offline now but will try to work on this later. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've hacked at some of this. The lead needs to discuss her writing (which I assume is her primary source of notability?) The awards still appear all over the place and need rationalising, with only the most notable in the lead and infobox. Dates for the works that don't have them would be useful. I've requested a source, but still not done any sources check. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , pardon the intrusion. I believe this is good to go to homepage / RD. Please can you have a look and help assist. No reason why this article should wait to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , pardon the persistent intrusion. Edits have been completed for over 70 hours now (~ 3 days). Ktin (talk) 05:12, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 10:32, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Karima Baloch

 * Weak support. It's sort of unclear to me what her activism is about—and since that's what she was notable for, it seems not that helpful to post an RD about her without identifying the nature of her work? Was she only/primarily an advocate for the independence of Balochistan? Or is there something else I'm missing? If that's clarified, I would move to a full-throated support. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * AleatoryPonderings, please have another look. I know the improvements aren't great, but I hope it gives some context. DTM (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. A solid C-class biography at the moment, very well sourced. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Pretty much a stub at the moment, limited biographical detail aside from the death. I note it was created from a redirect with news of her death, and has been changing rapidly. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Espresso Addict, please have another look. Is this anywhere close to passing RD criteria? Thanks. DTM (talk) 15:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks much improved, though I am still not seeing a source for the birth year. We have a storm and my internet is going in and out so I haven't succeeded in checking the new sources; I have marked it as needing attention. Espresso Addict (talk) 21:58, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * According to the BBC 100 Women and this source from 2016, she is 31, which means that her birth year is 2016-31=1985. I added it but it was removed by . Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The problem with the birth date is that, as I recall, Guardian and other sources give her age at death as 37, which conflicts. I don't think this should hold the article up, though -- I'm more concerned about the, to my mind, unencyclopedic speculation over her cause of death. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Espresso Addict, I have reduced the speculation and tried to increase the encyclopedic tone of the section in consideration. (More copyediting can be done if needed.) I have no issues with her birth date; if there is any confusion it can be left vacant. DTM (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 11:41, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Lenor Larsen

 * Comment. Not checked in detail but one problem with this is the dependence on the LongHouse site (currently Ref 3), which appears to be Larsen's personal site, and is decidedly promotional. The lead needs expanding, and there's no personal life (spouse, children?). Espresso Addict (talk) 07:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , following up on this one. Do you have the pen on this one? Ktin (talk) 02:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what do you mean by "Do you have the pen on this one?" Espresso Addict (talk) 02:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry, are you working on these edits? Looking at the content, nothing egregious there that should prevent this article to go to homepage / RD. If you are working on the edits, we can continue to wait, but, if no one is working on edits, this is good to go to homepage / RD as it stands. Ktin (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, not working on this at the moment. Given the number of RD candidates, my long-term strategy here is to point out flaws and hope that others fix them. Beyond minor copy edits, I only work on articles where I have sources easily available (usually Brits), where I generally edit in the area (scientists, writers, classical musicians), or where the notability is high and posting would increase ITN's diversity (basically everything except white male Anglophones). Other admins should feel free to make their own assessments. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , sounds good. I did not mean to imply that you should work on all article improvements. I am happy to lend a hand as well. However, having this one wait to go to homepage / RD pending personal life (spouse, children) etc. is harsh. Imo, this is good to go as it stands. Ktin (talk) 02:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. I'll take another look at this when I've been through Minoru Makihara. My primary concern on this one was the reliance on the biased LongHouse site source, and also the micro-lead, not the lack of personal life. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks good to me. The referencing can be improved but largely ok for an RD. Gotitbro (talk) 13:38, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Folks, I request a second opinion on this article. I have made the necessary updates and there is no reason to hold this article back from homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 17:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , pardon the intrusion. I believe this is good to go to homepage / RD. Please can you have a look and help assist. No reason why this article should wait to go to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 22:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. My concerns have now been adequately addressed. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stella Tennant

 * Comment. There's a source needed for her place of birth, which seems disputed (I've seen Scotland and Chatsworth) and feeds into her nationality (British vs Scottish). It would be nice if someone could crop the image. Otherwise, looking surprisingly ok. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * She was born in Hammersmith, London. Trillfendi (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks okay to me. the birthplace has been cited now. Gotitbro (talk) 13:37, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:22, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Muhammad Mustafa Mero

 * Support Everything seems referenced. But it could use a little expansion Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Dates for education would be nice. The lead needs expanding. Information on his life after retirement and his personal life (spouse, children?) would be useful., can you read Arabic enough to confirm at least the fact of the death? Espresso Addict (talk) 06:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Alas, I have no grasp of Arabic. I'll keep my eyes open for an English-language report/obituary - Dumelow (talk) 07:57, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There wasn't anything coming up in Google news when I checked earlier. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks fine for an RD. Gotitbro (talk) 13:34, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Minoru Makihara

 * Comment. On a quick glance, looking reasonably ok, but there's a lot of opinion sourced to an alumni site (current Ref. 4) that could do with higher-quality sourcing; also perhaps some rephrasing as the two are a little too similar in wording. I'd remove the Kennedy/Updike name checks, as they appear irrelevant. Was his wife the granddaughter or great-granddaughter of Iwasaki Yatarō, as Ref. 4 states? Espresso Addict (talk) 04:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thanks for the catch. Updated to great-granddaughter. Again, will need you to be specific regarding any concerns with #4's sourcing. As it stands the article is good to go to homepage / RD in its current state. I am ambivalent to removing the Kennedy / Updike references. But, otherwise -- no reason to hold this article back. Ktin (talk) 04:24, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't generally edit in the area of business, but imo alumnus articles are usually essentially puff pieces. If the university is decent, one can usually rely on them for basic facts, but anything laudatory isn't 100% reliable. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am not disputing that. None of the WP:PUFF text has been brought into the article. Please point a sentence that is WP:PUFF and has been brought in from ref: 4 and I will be the first one to delete it, alternately, go ahead and delete it yourself. This very generic statement holding up articles from progressing does no good to anyone, nor to the backlog that is piling up. Ktin (talk) 04:35, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:03, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks Martin. Folks, can I request one more pair of eyes on this one. I believe this is good to go to homepage / RD as it stands. Ktin (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Further note. This article has been in mainspace for less than 24 hours over a public holiday, and all content has been provided by a single editor . For clarity, I am in no way saying this precludes posting but it would, in my opinion, be wise to wait for potential input by others interested in this area. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:03, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I frankly am not following the insinuation here. But, I will WP:AGF. There is no reason to cast aspersions on the article just because I am the lone / major contributor to the article nor the fact that it is relatively new. If there are genuine article improvement notes that you have to provide, and please be specific with those, I am 100% available to have those incorporated. This lack of specificity is frankly very difficult to work with. Ktin (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Folks, please can I ask for one more pair of eyes on this one? I personally do not see a reason why this should wait to go to homepage. Ktin (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , pardon the persistence on this one. I think this one is ready to go to the homepage. No reason why this should wait any longer. Ktin (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks alright. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Fitzpatrick

 * Support Quite short, but more than enough well sourced content for RD. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support a citation required. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I removed that sentence as sources I found says match on 22 Nov 1969 3-1 to Man Utd scorers Charlton (2) and Burns JW 1961   Talk  21:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short but okay. Gotitbro (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Is there any info about family or cause of death? Also, there is a bare url in the references. Joofjoof (talk) 03:47, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Seems brief but adequate, but there's no source I can see for his precise date of birth (The Scotsman just gives the year). I've expanded a source (possibly the one Joofjoof mentions?) and replaced a deadlink. Agree with Joofjoof that further expansion would be ideal but the online sources listed do not give further details. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment.  I removed the date of birth to year of birth. i.e. retained only 1946 (which is currently cited). The date of birth can be reintroduced if citation is found. No reason to hold this article back. Good to go to homepage / RD., JW - any additional edits you are working on? Else, this is good to go. Ktin (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Thank you, thats about all that's available JW 1961   Talk  11:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kevin Greene

 * pretty good shape. A few refs needed, and the "career notes" section does need to go.  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:27, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , "Career notes" section is gone. I think all the refs are present now, but let me know if I missed any. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are two CN tags on there, one regarding salary and a quote. I can't find anything reliable to cite them.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good for RD now JW 1961   Talk  09:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. A couple of citation needed tags still need resolving. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Right now, the big problem is the pro wrestling section. There were sources there earlier, but no more. I guess they weren't reliable? I don't know these wrestling-specific sources, and have requested aid from WP:PW. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I've reworked some of the wrestling section, striking some material which was uncited and UNDUE with the detail level. I think we're good now.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to go now.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Great conjunction


QuantumPulsar2002 (talk) 17:32 (edited 23:03), 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support in principle There's a lot of hype around the event in every astronomical community that I'm familiar with. While I'm not sure how famous the event is to the average Joe,it's nevertheless being reported in major news outlets and given the rarity of the event, I think it deserves a blurb. However, the target article has a lot of problems so oppose until that's fixed. Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is in much better shape now Scaramouche33 (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Scaramouche33. But don't use the term win; we're not winning anything there. Several of my blurbs get rejected in the past and I don't consider it as a loss, just stale. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 07:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged . The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Still oppose, much better suited to the trivia section of the main page. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, despite being an astronomer myself. Although the event is underway, closest approach doesn't happen until 21 Dec. It's also pretty unimpressive to see and has zero scientific interest or value. Some amateur astronomy organisations are promoting it, but there's little-to-no interest among professionals. For the general public it's less impressive to look at than the Geminid meteor shower that's also happening right now. Whilst I like to see astronomy stories in ITN, I think general readers would see that blurb, think it was something dramatic like an eclipse, then be hugely disappointed to realise what's actually visible. We certainly shouldn't be promoting the pseudoscience of astrology on the Main Page. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 11:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's great to have an actual astronomer here, it really helps us differentiate the important stuff from the trivia Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To be honest I don't know at what point 2 points of light are close and similar enough to be visually impressive. If this was Venus (brightness about minus 4) and Jupiter (about minus 2) several arcminutes apart it would definitely be visually impressive, this is 6 arcminutes apart and only about magnitude 0 and minus 2. I won't guess if they will be or won't be close enough to impress the general public in a good telescope. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. The claims made above are incorrect. The event will be impressive to see; both planets will be visible in the same field of view in a telescope (only the second time this has happened since the invention of the telescope). Another close conjunction won't happen again until 2080 so this is a very rare event, and it is important as it has been given significant prominence in many astronomical almanacs/year books/magazines. The event is also of some scientific value: I know of some astronomers who are are using this event to study Jupiter's magnetosphere as Saturn passes through it as seen from Earth. However, I do agree that the article should be improved (help would be appreciated), the mentions of astrology removed (as unimportant), and the blurb reworded a bit something like "The planets Jupiter and Saturn appeared at their closest together in the sky for almost 400 years on 21 December, in an event known as a great conjunction'' (explaining what it is rather than just mentioning it).
 * Huh you're right, I hadn't thought of that. Jupiter is I believe the only planet in the solar system who's magnetic field is long enough to "touch" another planet. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I saw this covered on The Sky at Night yesterday and it looked quite special. I looked at the planets earlier in the year when out late observing the comet, which we blurbed.  The planets were a lot brighter than the comet then and this conjunction will make them even more prominent.  Unlike Brexit and other human affairs, this is quite a sure thing and it is good to give people advance notice so they have a chance to see it themselves.
 * Note also that we have had Nana Akufo-Addo as the picture blurb for an entire week now and it's embarassing to have such a low-impact story as our lead for so long. Like the comet, the conjunction will have plenty of good pictures for us to highlight and so we should make the most of them.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 13:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – How does this affect anyone on Earth? – Sca (talk) 13:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * People on earth are learning about it because media are covering it, and they are likely to be interested in a quality Wikipedia article on the topic. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Answer: it doesn't. It's almost embarrassing to consider it encyclopedic.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course it doesn't, nothing really does except a direct hit by an asteroid. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Depends on where it lands.--WaltCip- (talk)  15:04, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Lol. Unless it's an even rarer huge one. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ASTEROID STRIKES THE US, THOUSANDS CONFIRMED DEAD "Us centric" Gex4pls (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's U.S. – otherwise it reads as 'us' — Cf., "We have met the enemy and he is us." – Sca (talk) 16:01, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Support. This is a one in a generation event that’s also perfectly suited to Wikipedia’s strengths: unusual anomalies. The news cycle has been pretty slow also, and overall this just seems like a pretty strong event for ITN. The Image Editor (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose in deference to and his credentials.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Modest. Not of general significance or impact. – Sca (talk) 14:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a precedence of garden-variety total lunar eclipse nominations not being posted, that might help clarify minimum visual impressiveness for events that science has already learned all it could from as TLEs impress kids but are "eh I'll look but that's it" at best to astronomy PhDs and people who've had an astronomy hobby for long enough. I recommend collecting photographs of lunar eclipses with different skyscrapers or mountains or whatever to cure those repetitive doldrums. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , In_the_news/Candidates/July_2018 appears to be the last time we posted a lunar eclipse. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. It's an interesting and rare event. While it has no scientific value, that's also true for almost all other news stories. Count Iblis (talk) 14:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above. 108.41.121.223 (talk) 15:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose appears to be of astrological, rather than astronomical, importance per Modest. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 16:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not quite, it's important in astrological mumbo jumbo but it's still the 2 most visually impressive planets in a telescope being unusually close (less than or about 10 Jupiter or Saturn diameters). They're only in the same telescope field of view once every few decades much less this close. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although I stand by my oppose as it doesn't seem as significant as, say, an eclipse. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose deferring to expertise of Modest Genius This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 17:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Modest and others. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support pending improvements to quality and appropriate update. This is both in the news and of general interest to our readers. We should not be so pompous to reject this as not being scientifically important. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's hardly anything pompous about scientific importance, especially compared to other ITN/R topics such as award shows or horse-racing.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed. This is not pomposity, it's just a rejection that in general (per the nomination) this is "very interesting if you like to geek out with orbital math".  Enough said.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Science may have had its last significant discoveries about conjunctions with Tycho's measurement advances, Kepler's elliptical orbits and Galileo's work 4 centuries ago but it would still be new and interesting to some readers. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator and Andrew. Visible worldwide with significant media coverage. Opposers fail to convince that this is not an ITN-worthy blurb. Tagged section can be edited down or removed to the article Talk page for discussion as needed. Jusdafax (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "... Tagged section can be edited down or removed ..."!! That's two-thirds of this shoddy article... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 16:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on article quality. Weak Support I’m still not sure about notability, but article quality has improved drastically. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 17:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose due to article quality; parts are unsourced, much that is sourced depends on a reference that is someone's private webpage, half of it is astrological nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 17:19, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Am I at least halfway done with bringing article to minimum quality? There is less pseudoscience and more positional astronomy now. And anything of that pseudoscience that might generously be called history has been moved to new section called in history Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There's a lot more astronomy bytes in the article now and a lot less astrology and more sourcing and no tags. I note that a planetary science Ph.D. (U. of Arizona) who's been full professor at Rice University since 2007 has cared enough to write these detailed articles on great conjunctions:, making 3,000 and 20,000* year lists and writing about the cyclical mathematics and so on, one astronomy PhD not finding this interesting wouldn't mean they all don't. Those institutions aren't bad, University of Arizona's astronomy program is rated 5th to 24th in America depending on metric and their planetary science is 6th to 33rd. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:05, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Scaramouche33, User:The Rambling Man, User:Modest Genius, User:Sca, User:WaltCip, User:John M Wolfson,User:Orbitalbuzzsaw, User:Ammarpad, User:Destroyeraa & User:Black Kite article quality is much improved now, all tags removed arguably justifiably and another editor has added a sourced section informing me that the close event of 1563 was an important part of the history of science. Apparently the extreme inaccuracy of planet position tables by "Earth is center of solar system" believers compared to Copernican heliocentrism convinced (at least) Cracow Academy and an Italian that the then new Sun theory was true — long before Galileo was imprisoned for saying it. Interesting connection with the modern day I'd say. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it's still a no from me. That this might have been important in the history of science has no bearing on its current relevance to science; if we were to post anything related to astronomy or the history of science here, we wouldn't be posting anything else, and I don't think this clears the bar. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – This Great Conjunction is more than notable enough in Astronomical circles to warrant an ITN mention. Additionally, the article quality, the main sticking point of many opposers above, has significantly improved in just the past few days alone. As such, I support this ITN candidate.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Removing the "Ready?" as there's clearly more than enough opposed on significance to question posting. --M asem (t) 15:55, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with Masem's removal of the ready tag. The worldwide significance and substantial notability of this highly visible conjunction is well-established, the article is improved markedly in the past few days, and a potential posting admin should take those factors into account. In my view the opposers on significance are not making a decent case. At least one opposer on article quality has changed to a weak support, and other opposers on quality have done so many days ago and not weighed in since. The blurb should be now marked Ready, and an admin should post it. Jayron 32 says it well above: "People on earth are learning about it because media are covering it, and they are likely to be interested in a quality Wikipedia article on the topic." As I see it, remaining objections to posting this blurb simply boil down to "I don't like it," aka WP:IDLI. We are now one day away from this historic planetary conjunction. Is there one admin present willing to post? Cheers, Jusdafax (talk) 21:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You mean is there an admin willing to post against consensus? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong support on notability. The conjunction itself is a once in 20 year event, which is quite rare and interesting in itself. But the proximity, a one in 400 year event, between the two largest planets in our solar system, makes this a no brainer for posting. I'm not particularly an astronomer, but I have been tracking the convergence of these things in the sky all year. Bottom line, if eclipses which are commonplace and almost annual, are deemed to be ITN/R, then this should highly unusual occurrence should be too. No comment on quality as I haven't looked at the article yet, will have a deco a bit later. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The longest night of 2020 is vaguely apocalyptic enough without reminding the masses that a "great conjunction" is upon us. InedibleHulk (talk) 21:30, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I oppose, but this is rather silly IMO. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also oppose because the actuality of this coincidence (two dots in the sky are briefly closer from Earth's POV than they've seemed for a while) is a silly thing to get excited about. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The transit of Venus was also a dot closer to something from Earth's POV than it's been for a while (120 years) and that dot was posted without even having rings. Heck a total solar eclipse is something that's briefly closer to something else than it's been in awhile (average: 2 minutes every 360 years) (yes I know that one's much, much more impressive) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support something unusual and interesting—Wikipedia's perfect niche. Moreover, we currently have material from more than two weeks ago (Hayabusa2) in ITN. We may not be a news ticker, but it's time to rotate it with something or else we're not serving our readers. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that the news cycle is pretty slow right now (presumably due to a certain thing in a certain banner) is not an argument to post something that is otherwise not notable, and it would be an OR violation to do so. That said, the rest of your support is fine and I have no issue with it. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Unprecedented" recently became the English world's Word of the Year, per Dictionary.com, narrowly defeating "apocalyptic". First time ever. We could improve and blurb that article. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's funny. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Once again, the news cycle has been pretty slow is not an argument to post. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And reasonable people can disagree with that essay. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. The article has improved enormously but the astrology section is still unreferenced. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just delete that section. It's rubbish anyway. HiLo48 (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Well,today's the day! Great work on the article, it's much better referenced than it was a few days ago and the new images are a nice edition as well. I agree with HiLo48 that it's best to remove the astrology section if we can't find any sources for it Scaramouche33 (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that is possible now as the astrology section has been mostly copy-pasted to the astrology article. It's only a few sentences now which don't really matter in the article. QuantumPulsar2002 (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2020 (UTC). Update: astrology section now removed as there was nothing left in it that wasn't covered in the astrology conjunction page. QuantumPulsar2002 (talk) 15:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the Shakespeare reference (a 30 page thing soley on the 1603 "fire trigon") which surely has such basic in-universe canon. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 11:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment With somehow mixed support here (the arguments agains due to poor article shape have been resolved), an alternative would be to run it on On this day box. Since ... you know ... it's on this day :) --Tone 08:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That could be an interesting compromise Scaramouche33 (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support on notability. If there doesn't end up being a consensus to post to ITN, we certainly should post this somewhere else. We already post similar phenomenon (e.g. solar eclipses) but those occur quite frequently compared to this. To say that this is a once in a lifetime event is quite an understatement; this is a once in a millennium event. I can't think of anything else that we can say that about. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 09:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The last nom might have been premature but the general significance and interest in this event is now widely being reported for this to be on ITN. Gotitbro (talk) 12:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This feels like Joey's identical hand scheme from Friends - there's no THERE there. It is a function of planetary motion that sometimes they'll be closer to each other than other times. There is nothing remotely noteworthy about the occasions on which it happens.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That is what an eclipse is, when they're closer than an average of a sixtieth of a Moon width somewhere on Earth and the Moon height is slightly under the average miles you get total solar eclipses. Nothing more special than that, the separations in miles are still completely unremarkable but they're still posted cause they look cool. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 13:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How are eclipses unremarkable? People can't STOP remarking on them. You know how many remarks I heard about the last total solar eclipse? I want to say it was 1000x more than remarked on the great conjunction, but 1000x zero is still zero. Eclipses "looking cool" is still something, and something is more than nothing.  GreatCaesarsGhost   15:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The separation in miles is unremarkable and there's no closeness actually there (I haven't seen the episode). And you don't think the pic looks cool if you click on it? Nothing beats a total solar eclipse, if that's the minimum eye candyness standard then no one should ever post other astronomical events again but they have i.e. the longest annular eclipse of the millennium and a featureless circle of 0.03 Sun widths crossing the Sun (which I thought was cool too but I'm biased) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Pop science inspires people! People who don’t normally care astronomy are talking about this and getting excited. Zagal e jo^^^ 13:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not any more excited today than usual. I don't feel any effects at all from this great event, but then at the moment it's cloudy where I live. Nevertheless, this conjunction seems suboptimally impactful. – Sca (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But modern astrologers feel something. If a drug ever runs out we should just scam them with fake drugs and they won't feel the difference. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Modern astrologer" – an oxymoron? – Sca (talk) 15:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "person of unusual confirmation bias", "person who swallowed the in-universe stuff", "astrologer who happens to still be alive", "differently worldviewed". The differently worldviewed take offense at your dismissal of things like geocentrism, ghosts, flat earthism, terrorism and global cooling" and would prefer that you call them "heterodox realitists" Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not exciting as baseball's older cousin but so what... Howard the Duck (talk) 14:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There have been people so unexcited about the only local total solar eclipse in >150 years future and past that they didn't bother to step into the darkness for a moment to see. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 14:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Count Iblis (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And that proves what exactly? Are you aware of just how many Google Doodles there are? I'm not opposed to this nomination, but if "subject of a Google Doodle" were a criterion we'd also have blurbed "Zinaida Serebriakova's 136th birthday", "Remembering Sudan, the last male northern white rhino", "Bahrain National Day 2020", "Marie Popelin’s 174th birthday" and "the unification of Transylvania, Banat, Crișana, and Maramureș with the Romanian Kingdom on this date in 1918" this month alone. The existence of a Google Doodle isn't any kind of mark of significance, it's Google's equivalent of our Featured Articles section and just means that some Google employee took an interest in the topic. &#8209; Iridescent 15:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * True, though Sudan was posted as an RD Scaramouche33 (talk) 15:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sudan was posted as RD when he died in March 2018. The Google Doodle marking the event was yesterday. &#8209; Iridescent 16:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The Google Doodle is itself international news, being featured in multiple sources ; . Besides the great conjunction, these stories also highlight the fact that this is the winter solstice and make something of the Christmas Star aspect too.  These points are all timely and are clearly what's actually in the news.  Meanwhile, our blurbs are stale astronomical items, being from 5 days and 16 days ago.  ITN is failing while Google is succeeding. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support on the basis that we have sources like the BBC, NASA, and CBS News covering the event as a rare astronomical (not astrological) thing, last visible just under 400 years ago, and something that should be possible to see w/ naked eye under clear skies. As long as we're not treating it like as astrological event but the rarer astronomical one, that's fine. Article seems ready. --M asem (t) 15:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course. Astrology shouldn't be mentioned. Cape Verde or Mauritania and "parts of Oceania" were apparently the best places to go if one wanted to try to see it with the Great Red Spot on closest day. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment So far I've counted 16 supports and 10 opposes, How much do we need for a concesus? Scaramouche33 (talk) 17:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd have thought that was enough but I'm no longer in a position to judge, having !voted myself. Despite the claims above that it's an "uninteresting" event for professional astronomers, I find that opposition generally weak. It is certainly in the news, across the world, it's a very rare event and although the event has no impact on the bodies themselves, neither do the frequently occurring eclipses yet we post them without hesitation. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Professionals only get paid to extend the boundary of current knowledge, and don't look through telescopes with eyes anymore and use false color infrared/radio etc a lot, and things eyes can't see like extreme physics from outside the solar system and cosmology and exoplanets are big right now so it's not surprising that some professionals don't have a looking with their eyes hobby anymore. Stuff eyes can see has been studied to death already. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Interesting and unusual, as others have said. My reservation was the astrology nonsense, but now that section has been removed from the article I'll support.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Jeeeeeeez admins have posted dead American dudes that have more opposition than this one. Where's a rogue admin when you need one? Or does someone have to tagged this as ready and we'd wait for another day? Howard the Duck (talk) 17:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Notable, all over the news, and we've got a decent article as well. Davey2116 (talk) 17:53, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. I think there's a rough consensus to post this; some proportion (exact proportion impossible to guess) of opposes were to quality which seems to no longer be an issue, and to astrology nonsense that has now been removed. Also, oldest hook is over 2 weeks old, ITN needed some fresh air.  No one expressed an opinion about which blurb to use, so I went with Alt 2, because Alt 3 was too long  (someone else changed to Alt 3, which seems to me to be about 2% worse, so meh), and I don't think "easily visible" is quantifiable enough. Not sure if this is actually photogenic or not; if anyone finds a free image that isn't two dots of light, the image could stand to be updated too. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:08, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support - been in the news cycle for a week or two, easily visible to the naked eye (although it was more impressive IMO watching them get closer and closer over the past 6 months). I'm not sure why the scientific value is relevant seeing as we post eclipses that hold next to zero scientific value today. As for image, NASA imagery is public domain is it not? Their webpage on the conjunction. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 18:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding the image above; it is basically illegible at all resolutions and on all screens unless you click on it to expand; we tend to not include such images in the ITN box, for similar reasons why maps are usually not included on main page posts. It looks like a black rectangle with some random smudges on it.  If there's an image of the conjunction at better resolution that lets us see the planets and identify them at scale, that would be great.  But dim smudges on a black rectangle isn't really helping our readers.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 19:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is it too small to crop? Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No joke - can we run the Kepler sketch?  GreatCaesarsGhost   00:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure why not, it's just drawing lines between consecutive conjunctions with the "ruler" being the plane of Earth's orbit and even people who didn't believe in astrology measured in signs degrees minutes seconds back then, like a 12 30 60 60 version of British money. I might be remembering some other early to mid 1600s quote but I think it was Kepler who told the non-believing members of his profession to keep their mouth shut cause astrology is the teat of astronomy or something like that (meaning astrology paid the bills so they could afford to research and eat and making horoscopes for hire was something they were almost uniquely qualified for, no other job would need their skills). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 01:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting declaration Woe is us! InedibleHulk (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting support Been all over the news for the past week, is unique and interesting, and the article is in good shape. Mlb96 (talk) 21:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Macaca fuscata juvenile yawning.jpg

Wake me when the 'great' part of the conjunction is over. I don't want to get over-excited. – Sca (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Different people like different things, it's prominent in the news and not only just in tabloids like the NY Post and Daily News so why not? Also it removed another space item over half month old.Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 22:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop dealing with Sca. This same guy dismissed the Times as a reference for newsworthiness here. Well, it is not the NY Post and Daily News (or perhaps the Sun) so... perhaps the 36k pageviews yesterday and 192k for December all came from boring people? I dunno. That's certainly a lot more than 50% of those found in WP:ITNR. Howard the Duck (talk) 23:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Could be 40 obsessive astronomers and 40 compulsive astrologers checking for updates 2400 times each. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Ezra Vogel

 * Support Looks fine.  GreatCaesarsGhost   01:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've seen better. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support citation required. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added citations. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not checked in detail but some sourcing is still required, and much of the existing sourcing on his research is to his works or an obituary written by his son. The book quotations need page numbers. The list of publications is much longer than recommended, is there some sort of rationale for all of the journal articles? A couple look like obituaries. The books could do with splitting into edited and authored. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Switching to oppose because attempts at improving this article are being reverted. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. It needs some rewording according to Earwig. Joofjoof (talk) 03:54, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The parts that are detected by Earwig are quotes, job titles, organization names, and work titles. It does not appear that there is material that infringes copyright. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 14:39, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I see, that's fair. The quotes should probably be shortened a bit.  And I agree with Espresso Addict's comments about publication list.  Joofjoof (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Kīlauea

 * Wait It is an active volcano and infrequently erupts like this. So it is not like people aren't aware of this. Wait until we have an idea if there are any actual significant deaths from it. --M asem (t) 16:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait Hasn't even left the crater, wouldn't pass WP:MINIMUMLAVA as reaching 2 years without lava might be more notable than this. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose because 2019 is the only year in the last 30 in which Kilauea did not erupt. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait It appears that there is value in seeing what impact (geological or to human life) this eruption could have. Jurisdicta (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose routine event of an active volcano. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 21:49, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – This is the first eruption of Kīlauea in two years. The last eruption was one that had lasted 35 years. The current eruption is still ongoing and does not look like it is going to be a brief event.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 09:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – Until Kīlauea's effects on residents of the Big Island become known. – Sca (talk) 13:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment No threat to public; stable. ~  Destroyer 🌀🌀 14:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Can't consider it to be a rare eruption (last happened 2 years ago) and neither has any significant destruction/damage been caused (as of now). Gotitbro (talk) 19:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose seems much ado about nothing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support — Quality looks good. Of significant-enough interest to readers (of more interest to readers than what's on ITN now; the bottom blurb is going on almost three weeks now). "Not rare enough" is not relevant to ITN's purpose. "Wait because something more important might happen" does not further ITN's purpose. If readers are interested now, and we have a good-enough article now, then list it on the main page now. If something more important happens later, we can blurb that, too. It's not like we have so many ITN blurbs that we need to make sure no article gets listed twice in a certain time period. I so wish ITN !voters would !vote based on furthering the global consensus of ITN's purpose and not on their personal views about what's important news and what's not important news. Levivich harass/hound 18:40, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking, news is that which is important to a significant number of people. Both those terms are matters of judgment. Each report must be evaluated by knowledgeable people. (But there's some room for human-interest material.) – Sca (talk) 15:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Fanny Waterman

 * Support Short but okay. Gotitbro (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Satisfactory article for RD JW 1961   Talk  18:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support No complaints. Juxlos (talk) 05:43, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose for now . As someone who grew up learning the piano through Fanny Waterman's books, this is sad news. Although I would have assumed she actually died many years ago! The article is mostly fine, but I think there should be a bit of coverage of those books, as they are an important part of her career. Particularly the "Me and My Piano" series, which is mentioned in the Guardian obituary I'll add something myself later on if you aren't able to do so this morning, Gerda. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:20, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. I've added the detail which I thought was missing above now, so with three other supports this was good to go. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Nepal parliament dissolved

 * Oppose. Good faith nomination, but wait for the elections results, as this is what's worthy for ITN. Alsoriano97 (talk) 17:32, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Elections are ITNR, elections being called are not This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait until an election actually happens. If something does come of all this it'd probably be better for Ongoing. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Nothing significant is going to happen until the actual elections. Gotitbro (talk) 12:28, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Doug Anthony

 * Weak oppose. While the subject is MORE than notable to qualify for ITN, along with a pretty slow week in terms of news, the article in question is somewhat under-referenced and doesn’t quite meet the standards of ITN. If the article is improved, I’ll support putting it on ITN. The Image Editor (talk) 03:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. There's some uncited material, including the birth date. Something appears missing or scrambled at the start of the section "Deputy Prime Minister (1975–1983)". Otherwise looks in reasonable shape, although I have not done a sources check. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cn tags here and there. Gotitbro (talk) 12:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose couple of citations needed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and immediately enact - Article has since been updated and missing citations have now been included. Thescrubbythug (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Looks like the above issues were resolved. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Leo Panitch

 * Comment. Relies rather heavily on citations to Panitch's own publications; I'd need to check in more detail to see if that can easily be fixed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 01:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose citations needed. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maria Piątkowska

 * Support. I hate the article's current structure, but it's reasonable for RD. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:19, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Mekere Morauta

 * Comment. Could be reverse copyvio, but the Earwig report is concerning. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 17:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that the edits earwig highlighted predates the PNG Post-Courier article by a couple years. Reverse copyvio, I'd say, especially since the chunk of text in question cites multiple sources. Juxlos (talk) 23:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Quite alot of materials here. Albertaont (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Not adequately sourced; needs full lead; encyclopedic tone needs work in places; heading structure needs attention, eg there's a miscellaneous bit at the end that needs sorting out. The references use an odd "available at" formulation for the url, which makes them rather hard to read; I don't know whether this would fall under the allowed styles for references? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Not adequately sourced"?? It's got 83 references. If you're not happy with any of them, or if any particular sentences need verification, then please feel free to tag the article. But the sourcing seems more than adequate to me. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks okay to me. Refs and cats could use some fixing though. Gotitbro (talk) 12:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support While the citing style is odd, there are plenty in there (refill can't fix to citeweb style), I fixed the categories per 's request JW 1961   Talk  18:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Espresso Addict. Whether an article is adequately referenced is not determined by counting the number of cites. It's by assessing whether all major assertions are covered. In this case I don't see that they are. And the lead definitely needs expanding, it's only one line at the moment, for what is a fairly lengthy article. It also contains unencyclopedic formulations apparently in Wikipedia's voice (i.e. not part of a quote), such as "There should be as little opportunity as possible for sticky fingers in the government pie". Quite a bit of work needed here unfortunately. CHeers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose tagged, citations needed, walls and walls of text, grim. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 United States federal government data breach

 * Tentative support Having now read WP:ITNCRIT, it's clear the article meets the second criterion. (Check the article's reflist if you think press coverage has been narrow or shallow, and I'm sure you'll see it has not been; the topic is very much "in the news" and seems likely to be significant for a while, both politically and technologically.) As the article creator, though, I feel I should abstain on whether the quality of the article is sufficient, so I'll just comment that I hope other editors feel I have done a good job with it. (And if not, then I'll try to engage on the article's talk page to address specific criticisms.) Comment As the article creator, I think I should abstain from voting on this. I'll let other people decide. Thanks for pinging me, though, Thanks, Zazpot (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2020 (UTC); edited Zazpot (talk) 18:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think this would have been better suited as a blurb if it was nominated a few days ago. But I'm not sure if it will work for ongoing. I mean, how long would we keep it,till the investigations are concluded? Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:23, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not really "in the news" or "ongoing" (the breach has already happened). If the article was about an investigation into this which was receiving significant continuous media coverage that would be different. This is better suited for a blurb, but even then the exact extent is not known to gauge its aptness for that. Gotitbro (talk) 12:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose not in the news, not ongoing-worthy, not remarkable in any sense, not even really interesting. So that's a no. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:14, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The article is really good, which is the most important thing. This would be hard to find normally because of the title, so we could do some good by featuring it. I'm confused by the "not in the news" comments; I can't get away from this story. I don't think that we should go straight to ongoing just because it was expanded over a few days.   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not in my news, anywhere. Much more interesting and novel things in the news than this.  Also, not a US ticker. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This may be in the news but definitely not on the front page and it doesn't portend anything with a long-lasting impact. And if the article looks good, then it could get nominated for an FP and appear on the main page as such but I'm not going to buy that argument to make concessions on this nomination.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – There was some coverage, but the 'breach' doesn't seem highly impactful in a world dominated by more threatening issues. – Sca (talk) 14:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's definitely in the news, but its a slow-motion train wreck that's being attributed to yet more antics from the Trump administration that did actions to allow it to happen, and hence getting a bit of over-coverage here in the US. --M asem (t) 14:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, either a blurb or ongoing. "Not in the news"? Please, give me a break! As of today, it is front page news at BBC, France24, DeutcheWelle, LeMonde, just for starters. Guardin reports that, with Trump still being silent, Biden has indicated there will be significant retaliation once he takes office. This story definitely has legs and it will have major impact. Nsk92 (talk) 15:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for the impact, then judge whether it's major. – Sca (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's America so it's guaranteed to have a "bigly impact". After all, it's only the US that gets hacked by the Russians, isn't it?  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The horrible but impactful Americans raise their ugly heads once again. Help! — Sca (talk) 15:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Terrible business. I suggest we all climb into boats and have a rowing race down the Thames, to settle this once and for all. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Or a round of snooooker. – Sca (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Hah, BBC.com, sure. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A blurb would require a separate nom I believe. Gotitbro (talk) 19:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. We blurbed the Indian farmers protests from what was originally an Ongoing nomination. Personally I think it should be very rare for a story to go straight to Ongoing, with no blurb first. If it's newsworthy enough to merit an Ongoing entry then we should first tell our readers about the opening and latest developments, as a full blurb. Then move to Ongoing once it falls off the bottom. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per above. Not really impactful enough IMHO. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ...he said tactfully but impactfully. – Sca (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Listing me as an "updater" is kind, but may be misleading. I primarily worked on making the references look consistent.  I didn't make any significant updates to the content.  GoingBatty (talk) 16:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What he means is, his impact on the nom. was modest. – Sca (talk) 16:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Fun Fact An incident this major calls for "Federal Responders" to "safeguard" the details of it, to "the extent permitted" by law, per section III(c) of Presidential Policy Directive 41. What happened will be speculative, hard to find and/or partially factual. That much is near certain. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose ongoing, Support blurb when information regarding the investigation is revealed, i think the blurb ks better suit for this. 36.65.40.44 (talk) 23:20, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Espionage and signal intelligence has been an ongoing activity of great powers for over 100 years. Nowadays "the NSA intercepts and stores the communications of over a billion people worldwide" and that probably includes everything that we're typing here too.  Andrew🐉(talk) 00:20, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Blurb I don't remember seeing such sustained coverage of what should otherwise be usual espionage. Trump's silence is also more interesting. Maybe re-nom as blurb? 104.243.98.96 (talk) 08:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose both on impact and quality. Data breaches are frequent, caused moreso by organizational buffoonery and buck-passing subcontracting than by genuine technological innovation. Article is far too granular to convey anything to a naïve reader; it would be more suited to a subject publication. The tone is breathless and veers into proseline. It whiffs of the Russia hacking! narrative of years past which turned out to be rank untruth.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – This is the biggest, and possibly the most damaging cyberattack the U.S. has ever experienced, in terms of national security. That in itself is already more than notable enough for an ITN mention. Thousands of companies and U.S. Federal Government branches were compromised, for months, mind you. And the article appears to have decent quality as well.  Light and Dark2000  🌀 (talk) 00:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jerry Relph

 * Comment. Needs a source for the birth date (only year in source given) and middle initial. There is very little detail between 1974 (legal graduation) and 2016 (election), though his notability derives solely from his short political career. Otherwise seems an acceptable start-class article. ETA: I note, however, there's been some conflict over the text on his votes in office; a part of this section has now been removed but looking at the history all of it appears to be disputed. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing too much dispute there outside of the insulin claim, which shouldn't be that hard to verify, but probably not worth it if it's contentious. What's left in the article now appears to be fairly cut and dry. There's no wiki article on the publication for the DOB source I just added, but the article's from a former Star Tribune/New Yorker political writer, so it looks like RS to me Nohomersryan (talk) 06:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support bare bones, but given his non-notable career until 2016, I suppose it's understandable. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough. Every paragraph is cited and it isn't a stub. Mlb96 (talk) 19:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 21:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Pierre Buyoya

 * Oppose Half of the article is uncited. Mlb96 (talk) 01:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. In addition to the lack of sourcing, there is no clarity on, for example, whether he was in prison at the time of his death. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:07, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working on this, . I can't access all of the critical Le Monde ref 2, but I am somewhat doubtful that it covers everything that is attributed to it, in particular the material after its publication in April 2001; perhaps someone with access can double-check? There are additionally still a few bits of information without any citation. There's also nothing in the body about his personal life as an adult (marriage, children). Espresso Addict (talk) 12:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Needs citations. Gotitbro (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I will try to do some work on this in the next few hours. might also be interested. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, , could you review your votes in light of the subsequent changes? —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Still seeing a single cn tag there. please fix it. Gotitbro (talk) 11:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ,, : They have, I think, now been addressed. has also helpfully got involved. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are still two citation needed tags. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:41, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not see them. On reflection, I do not think either is that important and certainly not for WP:BLP purposes. Both effectively testify the fact that the Burundian Civil War did not end until 2005. —Brigade Piron (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Òscar Ribas Reig

 * Oppose Vast majority uncited. I wish you luck in improving this mess. Gex4pls (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Recent edits have unfortunately created a garbled mess. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm working on it. Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Attention required . Can you both take a look now? I have improved it. Alsoriano97 (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's somewhat improved, thanks, but still nowhere near main-page quality. There needs to be a coherent account of his notable career in detail, which is completely sourced to reliable sources. For example, just under "Beginnings" (which I'll edit to something better in a moment), when did he join the National Liberal Party; which exact party is referred to (wikilink); was he elected to the General Council or appointed in some fashion; if elected in what election, representing whom; what did he do as a council member; what happened between 1979 and 1981... And so on. Espresso Addict (talk) 20:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contribution, but I have to say that I'm struggling to find information as there's few specific information in the net. Alsoriano97 (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I added more sources and info, but as I said, there's not much more. I will continue tomorrow if it's necessary. Alsoriano97 (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article is significantly better now, thanks. I'm still puzzled by what happened between 1979 and 1981 -- was the General Council dissolved, or was he just not elected in 1979? Also there's nothing on the basic personal life -- marriage(s), children -- apart from unsourced material in the infobox. There's also a requested source in the awards. I have not checked the non-English sources. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Unsourced awards info deleted as I can't find any official source. I also can't find what did he did between 1979 and 1981. Infobox is now referenced. Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is significantly improved, though I've noticed one one uncited sentence and a preexisting cn tag. Get those fixed and I'll change my !vote to a Support. Gex4pls (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted. Espresso Addict (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: José Vicente Rangel

 * Comment 1 section unreferenced (tagged) and a couple of citations elsewhere (tagged), could also use ISBN's for the books if available. Will support when fixed.  JW 1961   Talk  21:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Incoherent, no information on his career in government, lacks sources throughout. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seeing maintenance tags and more refs are needed. Gotitbro (talk) 12:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Michael Jeffery

 * Oppose several cn tags and unreferenced paragraphs Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose at present per WP:PROMO. Lots of advert-like language at the moment, though that could probably be fixed relatively quickly. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. It's been cleaned up substantially. Only outstanding issue I see that we're missing a page reference for Who's Who in Australia, but I'm not super worried about that. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 14:05, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've removed some promotional text, but there are still sources required throughout. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:25, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks alright to me. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , pardon the intrusion, this is ready to be posted to homepage / RD. Thanks . Ktin (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John Barnard Jenkins

 * Support Article is well-referenced. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jeremy Bulloch

 * Support. Pretty well sourced, in the process of replacing some references to his website. Per below, filmography needs work. Most parts of the filmography are now cited. Yeeno   (talk) 🍁 22:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Folks, sorry about this, but, the filmography section is almost fully unsourced. Will have to be sourced prior to going to homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That was something I overlooked, I'll see what I can add. Yeeno   (talk) 🍁 22:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose the television appearances section is almost entirely unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 15:37, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got it down to seven, but getting nothing on those. Is it okay to remove them if I've made a good faith effort to cite? Many single episode appearances, and I just don't see anyone documenting that for posterity.   GreatCaesarsGhost   14:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Amazing work citing everything. If you still want to keep them for possible future work, you can comment it out. But if you're sure you can't find it, then it should probably be removed. Yeeno   (talk) 🍁 19:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can always move them to the talk page; that way people are encouraged to source them. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:14, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this is good to go. Marking ready &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:15, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: R. N. Shetty

 * Comment. Needs much better sourcing. The entire career section is sourced to a single article of 2010, now offline, so out of date and quality unjudgeable. Despite some editing to tone it down, it still reads like a corporate press release. Also no personal life beyond childhood, a >30-year period between birth and setting up R N Shetty & Company which is largely undocumented. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Edits done per request above. Rewrote most of the content to avoid reading like a press release. Meets hygiene conditions for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 05:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Please can I request a pair of eyes on this article. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 12:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - looks good to me after the updates, thanks . Marking as ready. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , pardon the intrusion, this is ready to be posted to homepage / RD. Thanks . Ktin (talk) 16:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Since I'm currently the lone support on this, I'd prefer another admin to cast eyes on it, or at least one more support, before it's posted. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:08, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I've just noticed that I was not in the "please post" ping, but in the "thanks Amakuru" ping so I should definitely read messages fully next time! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 17:09, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Appeal of Russia doping case penalties

 * Comment The news reports that they can appeal against this decision made on an accepted appeal (AP). Are we going to post it every time the penalties are reduced upon accepted appeals until the ban is lifted?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If the appeal results in a significantly different outcome, yes. I would consider that the change from "Can't participate at all for 4 years" to "Can participate, but limited to 'Neutral' for 2 years" is a significantly different outcome here. When I first read this AP story and comprehended what it meant, I thought it was only a reduction from 4 to 2 years but otherwise under the same terms, and thus would have considered that not significant enough to post. But as I reviewed what we had already on the target article, it made sense this is a big change. --M asem (t) 20:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support Target article is well referenced. Update is present and referenced.  It's not very extensive, but it's enough I guess.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 20:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Update is not great, quite short. Also meh in general This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 02:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Post now and post again, if and when Russia pays off enough officials to have the ban lifted completely. This shame bears beaing reposted. I am also adding a shorter alt blurb. Nsk92 (talk) 02:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Powerful and corrupt fat cats scratch each other's backs" is not news.   GreatCaesarsGhost   13:46, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Corrupt people are corrupt, what's new? Gex4pls (talk) 02:59, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Stale, not really in the news anymore now. Gotitbro (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Saufatu Sopoanga

 * Oppose Multiple missing citations, odd structuring, and some very weird grammar. Not to mention nothing on his death. Gex4pls (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I have done some cleaning on the article to address these issues.  please check this too. Joofjoof (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Seems in good shape now. Good work Joofjoof!. Alsoriano97 (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Much better than when I last looked, but still lacks important details eg education, civil service career 1975–95, date of first election to parliament, dates for early ministries, what he did as PM (there's a lot of detail on how he was ousted, but little else). I haven't checked the sources but do they really contain his actual thoughts on all the wheeling and dealing? Better to rephrase out of Wikipedia's voice. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:56, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have added more details for those areas and trimmed some of the parliament wrangling. Joofjoof (talk) 09:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Hennadiy Kernes

 * Support looks good --Tensa Februari (talk) 14:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Slight Oppose Article looks almost good, just the awards section needs more sources. Gex4pls (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good article, seems to have a notable history other than as mayor as well. Albertaont (talk) 16:25, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The business career section states that he's been described as a mini-oligarch. Shouldn't there be a citation for that claim? Scaramouche33 (talk) 18:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've hidden some material that needs sourcing, and requested other sources. Has anyone been able to check the non-English sources, particularly for the negative material? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:50, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All non-English sources are legit (I put most of them in the article), I can asure you. Although none of my Kharkiv friends told me that his nickname "Gepa" (see "Personal life"-section) stood for "Butt".... And they really did not like him and this nickname was widely used for him in Kharkiv. It might be better to delete this translation, although this translation is sourced the source does not say that Mr. Kernes was called "Butt-Head". —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  16:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , I just removed from the article the non-English source that claimed Mr. Kernes was called "Butt-Head", because the source did not say so, you are free to choose what you want to do now Cheesy grin.png All other non-English sources (still) look legit to me. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  18:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Orange tag in awards section, will support when fixed JW 1961   Talk  21:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * any chance that section could be referenced? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:55, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was able to find a reference for some of the awards. Although I fail to see why a certificate given by a town of 15.000 people (which is Bohodukhiv) should even be mentioned in the article anyway.... The Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedia's (both languages are used by Kharkivites) only mention 2 awards given to Mr. Kernes and those 2 are both referenced in Mr. Kernes English Wikipedia article. I suggest to simply delete the unreferenced awards. Wikipedia is not an almanac of mayors of Kharkiv, Manchester, Tokyo nor Nagoya etc. —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  16:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , for your information: I just fixed this section. But you are also free to choose what you want to do now Cheesy grin.png —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  18:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * changing now to Support per fixes made by, thanks for your efforts JW 1961   Talk  18:16, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Awards section needs referencing, would support when fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 12:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , for your information: I just fixed this section. But you are also also free to choose what you want to do now Cheesy grin.png —  Yulia Romero  • Talk to me!  18:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Now that the issue has been fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 18:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I came to post but there is still one cn &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added a citation. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can this be posted? This looks ready for the main page and is about to get stale. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hanif Al Husaini: His date of death is given as 17 December in the header and infobox but is not in the main text and I couldn't see any citation supporting a 17 December death date (only that it was announced on 17 December) - Dumelow (talk) 08:19, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Luzy Bronze

 * Oppose. a) There are already seven football events per year on WP:ITNR; I don't think the sport needs even more coverage. b) I don't remember us ever posting blurbs about individual awards in other team sports. c) The article The Best FIFA Women's Player is little more than a stub, indicating how little interest there is in this award. d) It's strange not to include the men's award that was announced at the same time. e) The Ballon d'Or is a more prestigious award. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 18:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback . Can you share which specific football events are featured per year? Hmlarson (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * They are listed in WP:ITNR. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was surprised to find that the Ballon d'Or doesn't appear to be ITN/R, but it wasn't awarded this year, so that seems to be moot. If we post this, we definitely should have both men's and women's together. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support - definitely worthy and the article quality looks good. Could more be written about the award and the circumstances? Why was she awarded, any reaction, etc.? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:33, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems like a nice enough article, which should matter here. Does anyone recall if we post the men?  GreatCaesarsGhost   02:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The last nomination of the Ballon d'Or was closed after a WP:PILEON of Oppose votes. Joofjoof (talk) 09:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Thank you. A lot of those arguments make sense and apply here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:22, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Kan-etsu Expressway

 * Snow close (sorry; I couldn't help it) this is not nearly significant enough, nor is the update all that substantial.   GreatCaesarsGhost   02:05, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Anthony Casso

 * Comment The "Big money" section seems undercited. Would support if those and a few other uncited paragraphs got citations. Mlb96 (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose too much unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * any progress with the article? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:51, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've removed some unsourced pov, but there are still problems that The Rambling Man pointed out with the tags. I have half a mind to remove the "big money" section unless sourcing can be found. Maybe User:Lenin and McCarthy can help? <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 00:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Or User:Vic49. <b style="color:black">Vaseline</b><b style="color:lightgrey">eeeeeee</b>★★★ 21:11, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Cn tags need to be fixed. Gotitbro (talk) 12:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Flavio Cotti

 * Weak oppose Seems like a stub but fully cited. Needs expansion. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 23:52, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Undersourced stub. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now that I've expanded the article.  Sandstein   10:52, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now it's long enough for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jack Steinberger

 * Support I think it's good to go, although one question. Isn't the term married to his wife a bit tautological? Scaramouche33 (talk) 04:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , done. Fixed this one. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 05:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The lead could do with expansion to include his major positions held and a summary in layperson's terms of the impact of his research. I also noticed that several claims in the text are only supported by primary sources or later reviews authored by Steinberger -- all of this needs to be sourced independently. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , while the lede can be expanded, can you be specific about the latter comment? The nature of research papers is that the papers themselves are the sources. I will not claim to be an expert on this topic, but, reading the article, it didn't jump out as something that I would rush to change. Ktin (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not a physicist, but my understanding is that one can state "scientist researched x topic" with a primary source, but one can't state "scientist discovered x, proved y, or demonstrated z", or the like, without a secondary source. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's also a bit lacking in dates; I tried to construct a list of where he was when but there isn't precise enough info in most cases. In particular, the retirement date from CERN is missing. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:06, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Added the retirement date from CERN. Added the other sources that you'd wanted. Anything else that I can help? Ktin (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , don't get me wrong, but, you've got to be more specific than this. The statement It's also a bit lacking in dates doesn't give me anything to work with, particularly when the article is littered with dates. Ktin (talk) 07:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. Alright folks, I am calling it a night. I think the article as it stands is good to go to homepage / RD. Above feedback is good, but, to the extent that specific feedback has been provided, those have been incorporated. With this, I believe we should be good to go. Ktin (talk) 08:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Awesome Again
– John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:43, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - You're right, that is a good article. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Horse article is good article. Gex4pls (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Chang'e 5

 * Support Should we be using a CGI of the lander, maybe of the return capsule instead? Landing was confirmed by Spacenews and CNet. Albertaont (talk) 19:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Replaced image with one which shows the lunar lander, lunar ascender, and return to earth modules.


 * Support. I have healthy scepticism of anything reported in Chinese state media, and the BBC and Guardian both caveat the news with 'Xinhua said' or similar, but there's no particular reason to doubt that the capsule has arrived in some form. We should probably avoid explicitly saying it was a success until there's independent confirmation. This is the right point to post this story and the article seems in good enough shape. I've added an altblurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * PS. There seems to be some back-and-forth reverting of the article regarding whether the capsule recovery has a reliable source. Maybe wait a few hours for that to settle down before posting. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 20:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good news organizations, if they can't have eyes on the actual event, nearly always use "According to (source), this happened..." and this is well beyond anything China related. I know we need to be cautious around China + state-sponsored media, but let's not go overboard here. --M asem (t) 00:31, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As promised. Gex4pls (talk) 20:19, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Quality and referencing is good. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  00:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. In the UK, the BBC now seems to be stating in its own voice, while The Guardian is still quoting Xinhua. It would be nice to get two independent non-Chinese sources stating success directly. An alternative would be to post the main blurb, deleting the word "successfully". Espresso Addict (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There are times where we should be cautious of the China-state sponsored media for what they report, but their space program is not one of those things they seem to "make up" compared to other factors related to governance. The fact that the Guardian and AP take Xinhua at their word should be sufficient for us here. --M asem (t) 00:30, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * NYT is even showing videos now, can also find the pictures everywhere. Albertaont (talk) 03:27, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. I think there's adequate confirmation and update now. Espresso Addict (talk) 06:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Aren't you an admin? You should've been able to insert it yourself considering the consensus now. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 07:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's considered a conflict of interest for an admin to post their own nom, even with consensus.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This. The only time (I recall) I posted my own nom was a clear SNOW support for the death of Stephen Hawking. This nom wasn't a clear SNOW due to source questioning. --M asem (t) 19:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted, as no-one seems to have objected. Espresso Addict (talk) 08:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have listed File:Change-5.png at CMP, but I think a version without captions would be better because they will be too small to read &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Image updated &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

RD: Leticia Lee

 * Needs a bit of work. None of the information mentioned in the lead is cited or mentioned in the main article - Dumelow (talk) 13:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm working on it - feminist (talk) 13:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can take another look now. feminist (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. The lead now needs expanding again. I haven't looked in detail at the sourcing, but is it possible to find a different source for Ref. 24, about her son? The title of the current one appears unduly negative about a living person. Espresso Addict (talk) 07:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * any response to the above? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:36, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I treat this nomination as stale. feminist (talk) 08:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No it's not! Especially now we are running with a new system, as long as it's ready within a week ... &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support What's there seems narrowly over the line, though I would acknowledge there are issues.   GreatCaesarsGhost   23:53, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This is now stale. Even had it been posted, it would have cycled off by now. 104.243.98.96 (talk) 08:25, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Due to a recent change in policy, this is not stale. An RD can no longer be rendered stale by other postings; it only becomes stale after 7 days.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:18, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Some cn tags need fixing. Gotitbro (talk) 12:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Donald Fowler

 * Oppose - Lots of cn tags. Poydoo can talk and edit 19:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I have reduced it to two citation needed tags. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support All citation needed tags have been fixed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 13:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ann Reinking

 * Oppose Seeing uncited sentences here and there; the credits section needs a lot more sources and the awards are completely unsourced. Gotitbro (talk) 00:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sources have been added, thanks to User:Aoba47. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good to me now. Gotitbro (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I believe everything is cited Scaramouche33 (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I'm not sure how standard some of the table formatting is, but everything is cited. Looks like we can confirm Playbill archives for Broadway credits. Kingsif (talk) 17:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article well-referenced. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 02:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Totilas

 * Support Article is good enough for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roddam Narasimha

 * Support Looks fine to me. Gotitbro (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment bare URLs need fixing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 16:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks for the catch. Fixed them. In addition, some links were dead / returning 404s, replaced them as well. Ktin (talk) 18:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article well-referenced. Note on the last book in the "Book" section: it would be better if someone gives a translation to the title. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 02:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Done. Good idea. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 03:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I was considering posting this but it looks like much of the article was orginally a cut & paste from his profile . Espresso Addict (talk) 04:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Eikes. Let me have a look once I get back. Ktin (talk) 04:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In addition to needing the copied material on his career and awards rewritten and replaced, little of it seems to be cited to proper independent sources; usually all awards need a proper source, not just the academic bio. The material on his research that I removed as a copyvio was cut and pasted from the bio, and so was not an independent appraisal of its significance. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , please have a look now, have given this one a thorough rewrite. Happy to make any edits. I will be awake for the next hour. Ktin (talk) 05:54, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my internet went down shortly after I commented, and now I'm headed offline for the day. Will take a look once I'm back, if it isn't posted before then. Espresso Addict (talk) 09:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted - it looks OK from my angle, thanks to Ktin's rewrites. if you do see any further issues then please let me know or remove it directly. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I love the new template with comma separated values for updater names. Thanks to the folks who enabled that one. Very nice touch. Ktin (talk) 15:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * as far as I can gather, we can mainly thank for this nice improvement to the templates. Plus maybe others behind the scenes. Cheers  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , thanks Martin! Very nice touch. Ktin (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You're welcome . If you have any further ideas for improvements, feel free to post at Template talk:ITN candidate &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:57, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Herman Asaribab

 * Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 12:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * cricket noises
 * Support Seems cited fine enough, though there's a bit of odd grammar in "Enembe remarked that 'Papuans should be reach the rank of general, either in the police or in the armed forces'". I'm not sure if that's translation error or just a mistake on his behalf, so I'm not willing to remove it. Gex4pls (talk) 18:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the grammar. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Fixed the quote. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 01:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note to admin please decide the fate of this RD nom; otherwise it would be stale and not recent anymore.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 05:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:37, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Benjamin Abeles

 * Support Barely long enough for RD and well-referenced. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 16:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment from a duplicated nomination: Austrian physicist. Unfortunately, I couldn't find the news in English media. Article is a tad small in size, but is start-class. Article seems to pass hygiene requirements for homepage / RD. I did not have to make any edits. But, if there are any edits required, I can give it a go, albeit with Google Translate as my aide. Ktin (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Very stubby on his career and research. The lead is inappropriate in its focus, and material appears there that is not expounded in the body. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, notwithstanding the above comment which is reasonable, I do think it is acceptable for RD. —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:48, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Meets minimal standards. Items in the lead are sourced in the body, though not explained in detail any further.—Bagumba (talk) 08:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Sudan's removal from U.S. SST

 * Comment Wasn't this linked to relations with Israel of Sudan? Also this is stale now, was already known/"in the news" a few weeks back; this is just procedural. Gotitbro (talk) 00:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Create altblurb 2 Its important to note how Sudan was removed from the list. Albertaont (talk) 03:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose it seems we're nominating US foreign policy announcements on a near-daily basis. This is not interesting. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 12:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not notable event. --<b style="color:#00B">cyrfaw</b> (<small style="color: green;">talk ) 13:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many countries have some kind of list like this. It just happens that one big country took a country off their list. Gex4pls (talk) 13:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Quoting : AGF and all, but this is why we get accused of thinking this is US-pedia. This is such a small story it shouldn't even get an article, let alone be on ITN.Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 13:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I think this one warrants an article, but it's abundantly clear the SST label is political BS. Witness Iraq being removed only for the length of their war with Iran.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:14, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We need to be wary of any policy decision that is being made during the lame duck period of Trump's presidency, as all are subject to change subsequent to Biden taking office in January.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per Walt. Quack! – Sca (talk) 14:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the US State Sponsors of Terrorism list is not notable enough for ITN, no matter who the president is. NorthernFalcon (talk) 16:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This user gets it! 😊 Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Total solar eclipse

 * Oppose on quality. Article is really bare bones at the moment. The lead needs expanding to actually cover the details of this eclipse (it is mostly about eclipses in general right now). And the "Visibility" section has no refs at all. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality - for now. Ping me when improved/expanded.BabbaQ (talk) 22:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above. Needs sources and better/more prose. Gotitbro (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: the article is poorly referenced and has minimal prose. Given that most observing events were cancelled due to COVID, there might not be much to say about this particular eclipse, which is a shame. I'd be surprised if there aren't at least a dozen popular news stories though. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 12:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality little more than a stub, and poorly referenced. Particularly the sections on Argentina and Chile- though that may be due to the pandemic. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 *  Oppose Comment – Ephemeral event. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment As stated in the proposal, this is covered by WP:ITN/R, so please restrict opposition to article quality issues only. 73.81.117.35 (talk) 16:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * pokes IP editor Who are you, IP editor? Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 02:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gérard Houllier

 * Weak support that "award section" needs a ref otherwise ok. RIP. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 12:35, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose "Return to the French national team" and "Awards" sections and one paragraph of the Liverpool section is unsourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * the sections you mention are now fully cited I believe. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose the update is not sufficient. Any cause of death? Related to his heart problems?-- P-K3 (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Update is all we have. No RS that I have seen do anything more than you have done, i.e. speculate. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 16:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There you go: "... following a heart operation." added. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 16:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's better, thanks.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment "Return to French..." and "Honors" sections need sources. Gotitbro (talk) 17:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now well sourced. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per above JW 1961   Talk  21:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good. Tradedia talk 22:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - this one looks ready, if anyone's around to post it! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 08:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. I haven't looked at sourcing but the tone veers out of encyclopedic in several places, there's no section on his personal life (marriage, children?), and his activities after retiring in 2011 only seem to be mentioned in the lead. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not perfect, but good enough for RD &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Huang Zongying

 * Oppose Article hasn't been updated to reflect her death and the filmography is completely unsourced. Gotitbro (talk) 10:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotitbro, just done my first run through and think I've covered all the missing refs and updated tense etc - Dumelow (talk) 10:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you cite/remove the brother (Huang Zongluo) part from the lead/ib, isn't mentioned in the body as well. Gotitbro (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotitbro, done - Dumelow (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks very good now. Gotitbro (talk) 12:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Indeed, looks good now.BabbaQ (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks good, I have marked as ready to go as well. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 18:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(Re-posted) Blurb/RD: Ambrose Mandvulo Dlamini
Support RD once article is expanded beyond stub tier, and willing to support blurb on the significance of an incumbent head of government dying, especially being the first incumbent to die of COVID-19, despite the fact that Eswatini is officially a monarchy. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 01:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * support The article is well sourced and has enough information. Not only being the first incumbent world leader to die in office because of Covid, but Eswatini is notable for its traditions and status in the world as an absouloute monarchy. I would be willing to support a blurb as well Cavejohnson13 (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OR Alert Before weighing significance, do any sources say COVID killed him? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He died in a South African hospital while being treated for COVID-19, so the consensus among sources is that COVID is the assumed cause of death, but it's fair to say that this is still just an assumption unless or until Eswatini officials announce it. Nearly every result for the term "eswatini" in DuckDuckGo's news tab reads something along the lines of "dies after testing positive for COVID-19", but it's also true that his cause of death still remains unspecified for the time being. If he's notable enough for a blurb regardless of the cause of death, then we can post it without mentioning the cause of death and update the blurb once we get some sort of confirmation from Eswatini. Otherwise, if the cause of death being COVID is what makes the story notable, then we can post it to RD first and then move it to a blurb if it gets announced that he died of COVID. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 02:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do any sources say he did anything except die after diagnosis? InedibleHulk (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * At the moment, no, which is why I agree with you that we shouldn't yet use a blurb that says he died of COVID. <b style="font-family:Trebuchet MS"><b style="background-color:#07d;color:#FFF"> Vanilla </b><b style="background-color:#749;color:#FFF"> Wizard </b></b> 💙 02:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why would you support a blurb at all? If he did nothing, what's the impact, the loss, the effect? Not seeing it a bit. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Deputy shouldn't be redlinked because he has an article at Themba N. Masuku. I fixed it by creating a redirect. I assume he's acting PM now but I haven't seen any sources saying so.Johndavies837 (talk) 03:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Precedent His more successful predecessor was nommed in nearly identical circumstances two years ago and went stale after weak RD support, worth a link, I can't paste. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support RD, per improvement. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:05, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD I don't mind changing this to blurb if a few more sources on his life and premiership can be added, right now I would say it is a "high-quality" stub. Albertaont (talk) 06:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weakly support blurb in principle, as a deceased sitting head of government. If it turns out he died from Covid, we can (but by no means must) break the "no Covid blurbs until it's over" guideline and mention it in the blurb. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 06:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC) Oppose blurb per absolute monarchy. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 07:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Neither does the prime minister hold real power in Eswatini (the king does), nor is the article up to par for an RD let alone a blurb. Gotitbro (talk) 07:10, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nor does Prime Minister of Eswatini have a standalone article; hard to be blurbworthy without general notability, one should think. Survivor Series (1989) is notable, and Zeus was the first from his match to die, of anything! Give him the presumptive COVID bump, if anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nor does Prime Minister of Eswatini have a standalone article; hard to be blurbworthy without general notability, one should think. Survivor Series (1989) is notable, and Zeus was the first from his match to die, of anything! Give him the presumptive COVID bump, if anyone. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support RD contingent on article's expansion and outright oppose for a blurb. I fail to see any significance of a prime minister, albeit sitting, in an absolute monarchy and the fact that the article is merely a stub at the time of his death tells a lot.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 07:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * oppose blurb I think we should blurb prime ministers from constitutional monarchies and parliamentary republics only ( and maybe semi-presidential republics as well),but since Eswatini is an absolute monarchy, I don't think he's blurb-worthy Scaramouche33 (talk) 07:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only just about long enough for RD but what is there is decently referenced JW 1961   Talk  08:21, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose RD only article is barely above stub, hardly a good summary of someone who purports to have held such a prominent position. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:33, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * to RD &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull / Oppose on quality . Article has no detail whatsoever on his tenure as PM, and is basically a glorified stub. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There were several unaddressed opposes with this one even before posting, and it needs improvement before it would be ready for the main page. No detail on his premiership at all. Please can someone remove it. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pulled. Per, this is a stub with no information about his notable role as PM. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD Information about him as Prime Minister has been added by Joofjoof. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD - thanks to for the updates, it looks much better now. I think it can be re-posted.  &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Restored. Thanks everyone. Espresso Addict (talk) 10:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) MLS Cup 2020

 * Oppose. Leaving aside any notability concerns, the only coverage of this match in the article is The Columbus Crew won the match 3–0 to secure their second MLS Cup championship. And that's uncited. &#8209; Iridescent 19:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "Big 5" North American sports isn't an actual thing like the "Big Four" is. --Bongwarrior (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it’s worth, the MLS Cup 2019 was listed on the “current events” page for November 10, 2019; there’s precedence for it being notable enough. The Kip (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , that is not "precedence" for ITN/C. Anyone can edit the current events portal. I don't think the MLS Cup has ever been posted by ITN/C. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's precedent to add this event to Portal:Current events/2020 December 12, which anyone is welcome to do. It's not precedent to list it in the ITN box on the Main Page. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Footy is well covered by ITN/R, and some special reasoning would be needed to post another tournament that isn't on the list. MLS is widely considered an inferior league to the leagues that we do blurb. Iridescent is also correct that, while the article is substantive, the update is not. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * My mistake, carry on. Close this if you wish. -The Kip (talk) 20:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No need to, you made a good faith nomination and consensus can change. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've been a fan of the winning side since their inaugural season, & even I must acknowledge there is not "wide interest" in the MLS.    GreatCaesarsGhost   21:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's how I feel about UFC Flyweight Champion Deiveson Figueiredo's legit thrilling draw last night, not worth getting his record-breaking accomplishment yawned at, fighting ain't sportsmanlike here! InedibleHulk (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Seems notable, but the article isn't great. Wouldn't know enough about soccer to oppose. –Cavejohnson13 (talk) 22:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Big 5" is not a thing, "Big 4" is. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Already have enough football/soccer leagues at ITNR no need to go outside of that. Gotitbro (talk) 07:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose but ONLY because I don't see a prose summary of the final. Also, I added an alt blurb per house style.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose as per TRM, not enough content about the match itself, which is what is expected from an article about a soccer final. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Even if we pretended if there was a Big Five (and NASCAR would probably be the 5th, so Big Six I guess), the other leagues are also the consensus top leagues in their respective sports while the MLS is not. Teemu08 (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. A minor competition in world football terms. We can't publish every country's champion, and sticking with those listed on ITNR is plenty of coverage. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Charley Pride

 * Comment He seems like a popular figure. His death due to Covid is notable, as is the trend of his songs. I'm not quite supporting it because something is going on with the reference tag down at the bottom. –Cavejohnson13 (talk) 22:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Support.Will support once sourcing is complete for "Awards" and "Personal life and death". Joofjoof (talk) 00:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment will revisit in the morrning (my time) hopefully the references will be fixed by the US Country music editors, RIP Charley JW 1961   Talk  00:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment It was "complications related to" COVID, possibly better noted as a death following "Kiss an Angel Good Mornin'". InedibleHulk (talk) 01:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Support. I went in and added sources / citations for the awards section. The main article still has some tags if someone has a few cycles to source them. Cheers. . Nice stuff  in seeing this one through! Ktin (talk) 04:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. It's pretty thoroughly reffed up now, and more comprehensive than many RDs I've seen. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 04:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. This is a no brainer, there have been multiple recent RD's that were far worse but because they had 5 sentences with 5 references that somehow qualified them for RD since they were "well-referenced". Albertaont (talk) 04:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Article quality has improved. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: U. A. Khader

 * Support. Decent article. Ideally the "bibliography" would be cut down to reflect significant works only. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  20:31, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , pardon the intrusion. This article is good for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 02:05, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:06, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted RD) Blurb/RD: Ruhollah Zam

 * Comment. It's mostly there, I guess, but it is very stubby at present. Can't we have more information on the nature and stance of "Amadnews", for example? —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:27, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Just heard about it. Shame our media is silent about it, I guess Biden really is banking on renewing the nuclear deal. Anyhow, I think his death is highly unusual. Being executed for your journalist integrity under the charge of "corruption on Earth" after being lured into your country by an islamic extremist analogue of CIA/KGB? Now that doesn't happen every day. CoronaOneLove (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose This has gotten no coverage compared to the execution of the Iranian scientist, nor is this particularly noteworthy. Also more general concerns with article quality and the fact that it is a stub. Albertaont (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, oppose blurb I think this is good enough for RD, but this got less coverage than the Mohsen Fakhrizadeh murder, so I don't think that this is worth a blurb. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 05:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb The article looks good now. Quite unusual story. Tradedia talk 06:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Capital punishment is not uncommon in Iran with several hundreds executions every year, so this is not a ruling with an extraordinary rare outcome. Also, the media report that the journalist was found guilty on corruption charges and, according to the Iranian law, such crimes usually end up with execution. As for the reactions, it's normal to see Reporters Without Borders and the media worldwide condemning the execution of their colleague but, frankly speaking, so much ado is done only in cases when the victims are journalists (they are not sacrosancts and cannot be pardoned for whatever they do).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb Don't see the coverage here. Meanwhile, the article claims his death was on both the 11th and the 12th December, and the blurb doesn't fit with "(The Islamic Guard) announced they had lured Zam back to Iran and arrested him, although according to other sources he had been arrested in Iraq". Black Kite (talk) 10:44, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only just about enough in there for RD. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only – Per TRM, Kiril. The execution was fairly widely covered, but was what one would expect from the Iranian theocracy. – Sca (talk) 13:22, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD, Oppose blurb. Article quality is decent. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 16:27, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD Numerous executions in Iran, don't think this is especially notable for a blurb. Barely passable for RD though. Gotitbro (talk) 18:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only good enough for RD JW 1961   Talk  20:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, oppose blurb Too short and a few uncited statements, just simply not important enough for a blurb per others. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What's your threshold for length? And I can't see any uncited statements, care to point them out?  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's obviously a know-it-when-I-see-it proposition, but the "Arrest and execution" section is only a paragraph long, and the "Reactions" section has only three reactions that are mostly straight quotes. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Niche subject matter I suppose. And the missing refs? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 12:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: John le Carré

 * Support. The article is in good shape. Alexcalamaro (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Multiple paragraphs and sections lacking a single reference. Stephen 23:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Done! All sourcing has been completed. have a look and let me know if you see any other misses, I am around for the next hour or so. Ktin (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, with blurb. One of the most significant spy novel authors ever. BD2412  T 03:41, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * He doesn't readily meet blurb material. "spy novel authors" is rather a niche area of writing overall, so while he may have been a big name in that small part of that field, as an overall writer, he's not rather groundbreaking. --M asem (t) 03:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's fair to pigeonhole it by genre. There is limited information on his sales figures, but one source notes he sold 3.55 million books between 1998 and 2018 - already thirty years after his main period of prominence. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's nonsense. He was a "fiction writer", so that should be where he's judged.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 12:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * FWIW, Terry Pratchett sold 70 million books and didn't get a blurb. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. He's a huge name in the UK at least; eg look at the index page of The Guardian atm: . Among the best-known popular novelists here. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only - He's nowhere near blurb-worthy. This is what RD is for. 1779Days (talk) 05:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality, and absolutely not for a blurb if Chuck Yeager didn't get one. Still a few uncited statements blocking RD, although otherwise decent quality. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb. As well as a major figure in English literature for almost a half-century, he was the emblematic writer of the Cold War in Europe. —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:38, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only I am revealing my ignorance here, but based on the comments I assumed this was the author of James Bond works. On reading through I was surprised to see that it's an author that only wrote two works that I can recall. I can't see how this should go up as a blurb.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly that's misguided thinking. Le Carré was a fine author, far superior to Fleming in every sense.  And just because you can only recall two of his books, I'm not clear why that should influence whether this is a blurb or not. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For the record, I would support a blurb for Fleming. The fact that Tom Clancy didn't get a blurb either makes this further a non-starter in my book. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 08:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD definitely good enough right now, ambivalent on blurb, certainly a English-language literary giant, but as people are declaring "popular fiction" to be niche and the individual isn't American, I guess this is a non-starter. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:51, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The horrible Americans raise their ugly heads once again. Help! — Sca (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support RD came here to nominate this, but realised it was already nominated. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD Mjroots (talk) 13:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only – While justly famous within his genre, Le Carre's historical fiction seems less than 'transformative' for English lit. – Sca (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD. Article looks fine to me - the two cn tags are unimportant. Well-loved author but not blurb level. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 14:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Flynn (academic)

 * weak support I think almost everything in the article is cited,but since this is a biography, shouldn't there be a section that talks about his personal life? Scaramouche33 (talk) 11:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Decent article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 20:24, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. He is notable Hugo999 (talk) 23:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Zodiac 340 Cipher

 * Comment I found it hard to find mention of the solving in the article (it's in a text box in small print) perhaps it should be more prominently mentioned in the article, if that is where we are pointing readers to with the blurb. JW 1961   Talk  23:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose While quite interesting, I don't really see how people figuring out what a killer tried to say in one of many statements is news. Gex4pls (talk) 23:45, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose While this is news, it isn't very significant that someone decoded what a killed had to say. Send to DYK. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 00:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose but Comment I think this is perfect for DYK actually. Albertaont (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose but suggest a nomination for DYK This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 00:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * DYK. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:41, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, propose SNOW close. Interesting tidbit and good faith nom, but hardly making headlines or having lasting significance. Pretty much impossible to pass, anyway. Juxlos (talk) 01:29, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose If anything related to this was going to be posted should've been the arrest of the possible perpetrator. Gotitbro (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Kim Ki-duk

 * Oppose Filmography and awards almost entirely unsourced, will revisit if fixed JW 1961   Talk  18:13, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose At this time until improvements memtioned already above are complete. Ping me and I change.BabbaQ (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per the above, also not notable. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 01:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As mentioned in the template above notability is not a criteria for WP:ITN/R (recurring items) or WP:ITN/RD (recent deaths) only the articles need to be of competent quality, i.e., meet basic sourcing/size. Only blurbs should be debated be bated on their notability. Gotitbro (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To be more clear, is a subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article it is notable for RD. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:23, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suggest you strike the . ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 14:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok; let me be more clear; sorry if I wasn't clearer before; but if you went to a printed encyclopedia, would you ever find it on the main page? Generally, that's my criteria. --Hurricane Tracker 495 18:05, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You have clearly not seen the text on the ITN box nor have read the instructions. . If you cannot follow the instructions, I suggest you back away from ITN completely. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 19:07, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Your personal "criteria" does not reflect the Wikipedia consensus on notable content, nor on content for In the news. If you fail to understand this nor follow simple instructions and guidelines set in stone by many Wikipedia editors, you are bound to be accused of not being here to build an encyclopedia. Chlod <small style="font-size:calc(1em - 2pt)">(say hi!) 19:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Filmography, awards and a few paras need to be sourced. Gotitbro (talk) 03:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have added citations, now only the filmography needs citations. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:33, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine now, the refs should have their own row in filmography though (for better formatting). Gotitbro (talk) 00:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose clearly under-referenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Almost there. Filmography needs a few more refs. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 14:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I have added some references in the filmography section. I think it is ready. Alexcalamaro (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment better, but that "uncredited" Secret Reunion needs a source. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok. I have added a source for that movie (I have found an article from 2013 in an Italian film magazine). Alexcalamaro (talk) 22:37, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, I am pinging, maybe they could take a look at the article, now that is referenced, and maybe they want to change their !vote. Alexcalamaro (talk) 22:50, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - change to support. Ready for posting. Sourced and ready.BabbaQ (talk) 22:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also changing to Support nice work tidying up the article  JW 1961   Talk  23:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. Pulling the above has potentially left a last-minute slot for this, but I'm uncomfortable posting an article where more than half of the text is controversy. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:47, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Nice work adding citations. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 02:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , into 7th position &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Tommy Lister Jr.

 * Oppose Barely sourced, entire sections almost go without refs. Gex4pls (talk) 14:31, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Not any longer.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 16:01, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support A verifiable story, just a bit unlikely. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:10, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose All film + TV appearances need sourcing. --M asem (t) 22:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - after everything is sourced. Ping me.BabbaQ (talk) 23:53, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Most looks fine but the filmography section needs sourcing. Gotitbro (talk) 03:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose huge number of claims unsourced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:53, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose a editor copy and pasted a move and now the page history is split. the article is too much of a mess. so oppose for now. GuzzyG (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I had put it in, and one of our editors removed it. Perverse result.  Not the first time.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd not consider that page a reliable source even though its likely true (the home page is "best online casinos".... --M asem (t) 16:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The best online casinos aren't sketchy, that's their appeal. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You disqualified Dr. John and Neil Peart because they were prolific, and didn't have the hundreds of citations that would satisfy you. The views by readers were to the contrary.  Happening here, too.  Oh well.   <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ITN articles, as part of being the main page are supposed to highlight some of WP's best work. Lack of sourcing is not our best work. A highly questional RS to source films is not our best work. The problem is that these are BLPs before they died and are supposed to be in far better shape per BLP policy but people don't edit them appropriate when they add information. That's not ITN's fault that editors didn't do their jobs in the years before. --M asem  (t) 18:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Your opinion. It still creates perverse results.  That's my opinion.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That ITN looks at article quality is not my opinion, that's the purpose of ITN. While what is "quality" is subjective for sourcing, the lack of quality sourcing for any of the filmography is clearly and objectively not appropriate. --M asem (t) 18:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your work, if that counts (and added the Grantland feature in 2017). But wrestling's curse is strong here, and this actor got too close. That's my conclusion, if it counts. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As for, the idea that advertising a legal casino makes a source "highly questional" is where your opinion perverts appreciation of facts you admit are "likely true". In my opinion, you should stop distrusting casinos, they've gone mainstream. As a matter of fact, commercial media is questionable, not illegal. InedibleHulk (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am just saying that a site that purports to describe the best online casinos and no other signs of reliability is a far cry for reliability for a BLP (of which Lister is still under). Just because the website name shares the same as Lister doesn't mean it has any association with him at all. --M asem (t) 05:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will never understand how a hypothetically miscredited bit role (or even a few) is potentially harmful to a dead person's survivors. But it's just one source, among a now-ridiculous number. Relax the restrictiveness, I say. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Plenty of other Wikis out there, this is an encyclopedia, so no, do not relax exacting standards. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:42, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What quality publication do you trust to safely support filmographies? InedibleHulk (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

[https://pageviews.toolforge.org/?project=en.wikipedia.org&platform=all-access&agent=user&redirects=0&range=latest-20&pages=Tommy_Lister_Jr. Tommy Lister, Jr. page views]. The readers find it without you. More than 200 acting credits. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 14:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The alternate way to handle this is to entirely strike the individual filmography listings. I think that is Throw out the baby with the bathwater but it could be done.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The reason his page is getting page views is for being a character actor in a fair number of films. That would be inappropriate to remove that section. --M asem (t) 18:02, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. But if that's what it takes to sway the naysayers... 200+ acting credits per CNN, and the list is incomplete.  Sourcing every appearance is a Sisyphusian effort that I will not choose to do.  Article is in my opinion otherwise well sourced.  But butting my head against this wall is futile.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 18:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not ITN's fault that editors failed to follow BLP's policy when they added his credits without sources in building up the article. --M asem (t) 19:09, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not about fixing the blame. It is about fixing/solving the problem.  This is a well sourced article about a prolific actor.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 20:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I am pinging  for their guidance since the carousel might move past this date anytime now. I think part of the problem is also because WP:IMDB is not allowed as a source for filmography, if that is allowed, it will solve a significant problem. I see IMDB has over 200+ entries for this subject. I also agree with  that some of these are beyond this group. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Stale - unfortunately it's now too late for this one. The oldest RD is currently from the 12 December. There do seem to have been a glut of them today, and more possibly on the way. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep. Self fulfilling prophecy.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 21:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 110,000 views as of today. <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 15:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So? ApLundell (talk) 22:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hasu Yajnik

 * Support Looks fine, could do well with a bibliography though. Gotitbro (talk) 18:03, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Though I feel like it could use more than 5 sources for it's length. Gex4pls (talk) 20:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:43, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - Dumelow (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Garry Runciman, 3rd Viscount Runciman of Doxford

 * Weak support ref 2 is showing perm-a-dead, but otherwise ok. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 12:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks okay to me, seeing a single dead link which shouldn't stop this from RD though if anyone can replace it please do so. Gotitbro (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Ref 2 is used only to support the relation to an uncle, which can be inferred by other references. What's the standard here? Is it enough to put two references that can infer the relationship logically ([1]Garry is the son of Leslie and [2] Leslie is the brother of Steven) or does there need to be an explicit statement from an RS ([1]Garry is Steven's nephew)?130.233.213.199 (talk) 09:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * References such as the above would be sufficient - Dumelow (talk) 09:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)


 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:30, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brandon Bernard

 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 12:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks pretty fine. Gotitbro (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment ANYONE? 18 hours later.... The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:44, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support As pile-on, certainly should go up.130.233.213.199 (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Richard Corben

 * Comment A lot of paras in the bio & awards sections are unreferenced. A long list of sources is given at the end but need inline cites. Could also do well with a biblio (if original works exist). Gotitbro (talk) 09:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose both image files were being used illegitimately (I removed them, no need to thank mee) and the article needs more sourcing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Joseph Safra

 * Oppose A bit stubby for RD, can clearly be expanded and needs some additional sources. Gotitbro (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose lamentable article for "one of the richest men on Earth". The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:47, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good work. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article seems ok as of now. Being "The richest banker in the world" makes him especially notable. Tradedia talk 21:40, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment, there's still a "failed verification" claim up there. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 12:08, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. I just looked at the article now and the "failed verification" is gone and everything seems to have been referenced. Tradedia talk 17:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:26, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Barbara Windsor

 * Oppose There are several uncited statements. Please fix them. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too many unsourced paras with the filmography being completely unsourced, also please find a more apt image for the infobox (at the peak of her career etc.) now that she is deceased. Gotitbro (talk) 04:44, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Surely the current image—from 2010, when she was the main character on the country's most-watched TV programme— the peak of her career? Carry On was a vehicle for Sid James and Kenneth Williams; people tend to remember Windsor as more associated with them than she actually was, she didn't even appear in most of them. &#8209; Iridescent 07:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And that's not really a discussion for ITNC in any case. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 09:58, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment There's only a few TV shows without reference. If that's a showstopper then I'd just remove them. yorkshiresky (talk) 16:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I have removed the filmography entries without references. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 06:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support some bare URLs in there but otherwise much improved. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 12:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article has improved, would you change your position? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:17, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:31, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) US policy Western Sahara

 * Comment It does appear important but I am conflicted as to how significant or headline grabbing this is when compared to the Israel recognitions. Gotitbro (talk) 23:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks like the Morocco recognition of Israel is linked to this which definitely makes it more significant. If the (now closed) blurb from below can be combined onto here that would be better reflection of the situation. Gotitbro (talk) 23:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have proposed an altblurb to combine both. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment From what I am reading, it looks like no country recognizes the independence of Western Sahara. Not sure how the US move is therefore significant. Albertaont (talk) 00:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Currently 40 UN member states recognize Western Saharan independence. The US is the first state to explicitly recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the entire territory. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥ ) 00:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Doesn't that mean that (X-40) UN member states implicitly recognize Moroccan sovereignty over W.S.? And besides, American policy on Western Sahara conflict section in the Morocco–US relations article seems to indicate that Trump's statement is simply an explicit restatement of existing policy that W.S. is sovereign Moroccan territory. Juxlos (talk) 22:51, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support on principle, oppose on quality. As noted earlier, I thought this was the more notable outcome of the Morocco/United States/Israel agreement.  However, the target article currently lacks a number of citations, which must be fixed before it can be blurbed. NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose but would support if merged with Morocco's normalised relations with Israel. I don't see how recognising Morocco's claim over a territory that is also claimed by a state effectively recognised by only around 50 countries in the world is important. A vast najority of the UN member states (including all permanent member states of the Security Council) don't recognise SADR, which goes in favour of Morocco's claim over that territory. Additionally, the United States has never recognised SADR, so their support of Morocco's claim is not really big news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * support alt blurb First country recognizing anything is generally significant to global politics as opposed to 163rd country doing so,however,I believe it's important to mention the full extent of the agreement Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know: does the fact that this is being done by a lame duck president matter? Biden could revoke recognition in 40 days right? And normally state recognition is a domino game; that won't happen here.  GreatCaesarsGhost   13:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Would Biden do that though? I don't see why the US would have any interest in supporting the SADR. Considering the US provided arms support to Morocco during the Western Sahara war, I think the recognition is here to stay. Has Biden ever made a statement about the dispute? Scaramouche33 (talk) 14:29, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose A country recognizing another country, and another country recognizing the former's disputed land as belonging to the former. Doesn't really seem important. Gex4pls (talk) 13:07, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose – Per previous. Big wow. – Sca (talk) 14:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose same as below; the article update is insufficient. In the case of both of the bolded articles, there is a single, short sentence in the lead that is the total amount of information about the subject; even more important neither article currently discusses the deal itself.  If you want this posted, you should include a lot more prose in the target article, so that we have something worthwhile for people to read.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:14, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I suspect that Biden will most likely ignore this recognition and hope people forget about it(doubtful he actually reverses this). 331dot (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The "big wow" arguments aren't entirely fair, as by doing this the US is essentially sending a massive "fuck you" to the African Union (in African terms, this is roughly as inflammatory as formal US recognition of the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus would be in terms of relationship with European institutions or that a US recognition of Pakistani claims to Kashmir would have on relations with India), but if you need a lengthy explanation before most readers can understand the significance, it's generally not suitable for a short-format ITN blurb. &#8209; Iridescent 16:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Besides, we're not a DT-ticker. – Sca (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. The first international recognition of the annexation of Western Sahara is a big deal in its own right. Coupled with Morocco's recognition, I think it is easily ITN-worthy in a way which the recognition of a Gulf states is not. Morocco is a serious regional power in its own right. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:00, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose currently, 40 countries, never including the United States, recognize W.S.' independence. Implicitly this means that 150-160 countries recognize that the region is Moroccan sovereign territory, and as the US has never recognized WS the only other option is recognizing that the region is Moroccan. The United States seem to have a past stance which also sides with Morocco, too, and this announcement is just reiterating existing policy. Juxlos (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sidenote: the AP source mentions nowhere the claim that the US was the first country to recognize Moroccan sovereignty over the region (the "first" is Morocco recognizing the US back in 1777) and I'm reasonably sure putting that blurb on ITN would count as a hoax. Juxlos (talk) 22:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This Al Jazeera source mentions that "William Lawrence, a professor of political science and international affairs at the American University, said the move “makes the US … the first country in the entire world to recognise the Moroccan claim”." Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 04:48, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose transient, soon-to-be-overturned nonsense as the orange balloon chapter edges nearer to a welcome close. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:45, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is interesting as Morocco was the first country to ally with USA, very soon after it declared independence and it has been an ally of America ever since. And though it makes far, far, far less human rights violations than Palestinians Western Sahara doesn't want to recognize Israel so it's hard to imagine why anyone would expect the US might recognize them. Unfortunate if you're Sahrawi when some less deserving governments are full UN members but they've got some bad luck. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 15:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I imagine the shades of both the American and Moroccan troops killed during the the US invasion of Morocco in 1942 might somewhat dispute the "it has been an ally of America ever since" part. &#8209; Iridescent 16:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe there's an asterisk somewhere like the US considered the Axis government they fought an illegitimate coup of the real Moroccan government? Like how the Polish government in exile was the real government and Hitler the fake one. Of course the Axis Moroccans would instead consider it the Moroccan patriots saving the country from things like the bad Moroccans with these German chaps conveniently here to bleed with us. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 17:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was always under the impression that Morocco viewed both the Third Republic and Vichy France to be oppressive,but being a French protectorate didn't give them much choice during the war.I do know that when Roosevelt met Sultan Mohammed V, he said that he was confident that Morocco would have an independent future,which further fuelled the liberation movement in the country. But I think we're going off topic here Scaramouche33 (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Moroccan recognition of Israel

 * Oppose only because this is like "gay marriage" recognition - ITN can't support a nom from every country that acknowledges Israel here. --M asem (t) 17:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support only because it's a country from the Arab world. In fact, any normalisation of the diplomatic relations between Arab countries and Israel is big news.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article update is shorter than the blurb. If THIS is all of the information that the highlighted article has on the topic, maybe we don't need to post it in ITN?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 18:16, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe it is more notable that the United States has become the first nation to formally recognize Moroccan sovereignty over Western Sahara, which it has done as part of this deal. Morocco becoming the fourth Arab state to recognize Israel is not as notable. NorthernFalcon (talk) 19:00, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment We didn't post the last countries that normalized relations with Israel. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 19:21, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose At this point, not particularly notable. We correctly posted the normalization of ties with UAE, if there is normalization with Saudi Arabia, might be noteworthy too. Albertaont (talk) 19:32, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The first recognitions might have been notable but as this point this is just headline grabbing point scoring. Gotitbro (talk) 21:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Snow close and quickly hide this under the rug. We can't have positive news being posted on ITN, especially if it makes a certain person which weallhate look good. 2601:602:9200:1310:2C6C:F13B:C2A2:4547 (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Yevgeny Shaposhnikov

 * Oppose It is a stub and is lacking inline citations. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Almost completely unsourced stub. Gotitbro (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Unsourced stub. Lefcentreright  Discuss  21:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Iman Budhi Santosa

 * Support The article looks good --Tensa Februari (talk) 11:07, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good enough for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 12:49, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , pardon the intrusion. This is ready for posting onto homepage / RD. I was waiting for a bit to see if a couple of December 7 articles would move in, but, seems like they are not ready. Let's go ahead. Ktin (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - Dumelow (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Astad Deboo

 * Support Article in good shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is good enough for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine to me. Gotitbro (talk) 12:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced and whatnot Gex4pls (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , pardon the intrusion. This is ready for posting onto homepage / RD. I was waiting for a bit to see if a couple of December 7 articles would move in, but, seems like they are not ready. Let's go ahead. Ktin (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted, there's one IMDB reference in there which should probably be replaced but I'll not hold it up for that - Dumelow (talk) 19:43, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Replaced. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Stanley Smith

 * Support Short but passable. The table for Daytona 500 is uncited, but I think it can be fixed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ - The Bushranger One ping only 02:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Half the article is just tables, can use some more prose. Gotitbro (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no more to add, sadly, given the available sources. The tables should probably be collapsed though, I'll work on that ✅. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A full obit was published and some information has been added. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:52, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks okay now. Gotitbro (talk) 03:44, 12 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Seems fine enough, sourced passably. Gex4pls (talk) 16:19, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:54, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Raymond Hunter

 * Support Could do with a few more sources but overall is pretty fine. Gex4pls (talk) 15:57, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Nice little article, per Gex4pls sourcing could be improved but nothing drastic to hold up posting to RD JW 1961   Talk  22:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This looks good enough to go - The Bushranger One ping only 00:32, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:56, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Manglesh Dabral

 * Support Article is good enough for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good enough. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted - Dumelow (talk) 15:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paolo Rossi

 * Support Looks good. Also saw it on my EU football feed. Albertaont (talk) 05:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Regards So  Why  08:28, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Please consider posting WP:ITNRD from the bottom of the stack given that the carousel moves pretty fast. There are articles below including Dick Allen which were potentially ready, but, now run the risk of having the carousel move past. This one could have waited until those were posted. Ktin (talk) 08:35, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I was working through the page (while I had some time) and I have now added some of the others. Dick Allen seems to still need some discussion though, so I left it for now. Regards So  Why  10:42, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 Ghanaian general election
See below. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Neutral significant but Ghana isn't. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:Systematic bias. Just because it's not the US, that doesn't make it unimportant. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * General elections are on the recurring events list, meaning notability is not at issue. 331dot (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * yes, but Ghana is not notable. Haven’t really even heard that they had that. And we have few African readers, HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 23:10, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read about systemic bias. We do have African readers. And it doesn't matter if we did or not. Ghana is a sovereign state and its elections are ITNR. I'm sure one or two Ghanians might find their way to this page; if I were you I'd consider retracting your statement. 331dot (talk) 23:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:ITN/R, the general elections of every single country on the page list of sovereign states are intrinsically considered notable enough for inclusion. Not just a select few that an editor might perceive to be more "notable" than others.--Sunshineisles2 (talk) 23:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stating "Ghana is not notable" indicates a supreme misunderstanding of how notability works to the point I have to wonder about WP:COMPETENCE. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:36, 12 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support presidential elections of all countries are ITNR, and this article is in good shape. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks good, its not like Ghana is less important than Montenegro. Re-edited some of the indents. Albertaont (talk) 00:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article is good and it's important to post for African readers. Just as important as Montenegro. Cavejohnson13 (talk) 00:10, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article is good enough and the event is ITNR. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Perfectly good article, and 's comment is something we really shouldn't dwell on. People make mistakes sometimes, especially when not knowing the guidelines. Gex4pls (talk) 02:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've added an alternative blurb to emphasise his re-election. The phrase 'second term' has broader meaning and may be misunderstood as second assumption of the office.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 09:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Could use more prose/seeing a single content tag but mostly okay. Gotitbro (talk) 12:47, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The blurb with this wording is misleading. Could you change it to 're-elected' or 'second consecutive term' because 'second term' may also indicate that he assumes the office after a break?--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I really don't think that meaning is implied in "second term". —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:59, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I do and had to check if he was re-elected just to make sure that it has the same meaning. Also, I can't remember if we've ever used this wording for a re-elected president before.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 17:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Yeah, it didn't really seem like a bit problem to me, but using "re-elected" is OK too, so I've changed it to that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 18:27, 10 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Its not rare at all, which is why Kiril Simeonovski mentioned it and it had to be corrected. The last 2 presidents of Chile are both back-to-back alternates of each other. Thaks for correcting it.Albertaont (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Harold Budd

 *  Support Perfectly sourced now. Big thanks to, , and others for really turning this one around. Gex4pls (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Poor referencing all over. Gotitbro (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Much improved with references and a lot of the cruft removed.yorkshiresky (talk) 20:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , nice work! I have removed the yellow box; don't think it needs one. Added a minor tag which should be easy to fill. Ktin (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reference added. Hopefully good to go. yorkshiresky (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Well referenced and looks clean for homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 21:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Greatly improved article since I looked in earlier, looks good for RD now JW 1961   Talk  22:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article is now good enough. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Regards So  Why  10:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Alejandro Sabella

 * Oppose Per nom, too many unsourced statements for my liking. Gex4pls (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seeing unsourced paras and even sections. Gotitbro (talk) 04:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I agree with previous comments, after looking at the article, I believe there is not enough information that has been properly sourced to warrant inclusion for "In the News". Jurisdicta (talk) 05:25, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg N Stale—Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Mount Everest

 * Oppose Interesting and perhaps DYK, but not really a news-breaking type thing compared to everything else going on. --M asem (t) 14:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Doesn't really seem like "encyclopedic news" and more like a fun fact for the main page of nat geo (though this would make a good dyk, per above) Gex4pls (talk) 15:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous posts. Reminds me in a way of an old TV ad for a cigarette that was "a silly millimeter longer." ;-) — Sca (talk) 15:21, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Definitely DYK per Masem, but not not sure it would qualify as news. Albertaont (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Mildly interesting story, but the outcome is trivial. I agree it would make a good DYK blurb, but the article isn't eligible there. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose this has one sentence in that article. Whilst mildly interesting, it's not important enough for ITN. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Gerard Stokes

 * Support Per nom. Everything looks sourced.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well referenced but there is 1 dead link (Ref 13 that IABot couldn't fix) if someone with Rugby knowledge could get a new reference for that JW 1961   Talk  18:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks okay. Gotitbro (talk) 04:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment been 10 hours since the last comment, and only support so far. Can an admin review this and promote? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:01, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) COVID Vaccine

 * Oppose first proposed blurb as written. I did see this where I am this morning, but the breakthrough would have been the approval of the vaccine, not the first person to receive it outside of a trial.  Perhaps a more general blurb that the UK is the first to approve and administer a vaccine, but I don't think we need to use this person's name. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment dup from a very similar nom. It seems the only difference is that someone (not part of a trial or part of the privileged class) has actually received it.130.233.213.199 (talk) 14:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't see that, my bad. It still is a different angle but I understand that Rockin (Talk) 14:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurbs as written. Focus should be on the beginning of non-clinical trial rollout, rather than who is the first to receive a vaccine.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think I have ever editing this article before, let alone significantly updated it. Did you forget to change it when copying the template? MSG17 (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Hype. Other Brits already have been vaccinated. And would we run a blurb every time someone in some 'notable' country is the first to be vaccinated? No. – Sca (talk) 14:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As I understand it this is the first one worldwide, right? I guess we've always said that only highly significant Covid blurbs would be posted outside of the ubiquitous box-at-the-top. Perhaps this one is it, because it could signify the beginning of the end of the pandemic, but I'm slightly undecided on that point. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Another consideration is that thousands were vaccinated in pre-release tests. And the recipient of the first official UK shot, Margaret Keenan, bless her 90-year-old heart, is not herself independently notable. – Sca (talk) 15:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. If we had wanted to carry a vaccine story, I think the point of approval would have been more logical. There is no obvious importance in the physical act of injecting it, especially since the Russian vaccine has already blurred the border between trial and roll-out stages. I suspect the hype comes from British internal politics and the desire for the government to look better amid the Brexit talks... —Brigade Piron (talk) 15:27, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Covid vaccines are already in the banner and consensus was against posting the UK approval of this vaccine. There's nothing particularly notable about the first dose after approval compared to the last one during the trials phase. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 16:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support A shot in the arm for Britain.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support big moment. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 18:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose Factually incorrect since the head of state of Dubai and crown prince of Bahrain have already been injected outside of vaccine trials. Albertaont (talk) 18:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposed blurb, altblurb and altblurb2 are incorrect. People have been vaccinated with Sputnik V well before the Pfizer vaccination commenced in the UK. The only accurate blurb is altblurb3. However, the wording of altblurb3 revelas that this news isn't such a big deal after all, but PR coming from Pfizer. Chrisclear (talk) 19:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose and suggest closure per WP:SNOW. Firstly, this is already covered with the COVID-19 banner on the top. Secondly, vaccination of people with Sputnik V has already been reported, which automatically makes most of the blurbs incorrect. Thirdly, it's not our business to make celebrities of those who have taken the vaccine first. Fourthly, the only correct blurb would be the one including Pfizer but we can't accept it per WP:PROMOTION.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Eluru outbreak

 * Oppose at this time. When up against COVID, one death/400 infections is a ripple. It might grow to something larger, but at this point, we can't tell if this is a significant event relative to everything else going on. --M asem (t) 05:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait I think in next 1-2 days we will know if this is something serious or not. Albertaont (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Dead guy died an "unrelated" death, the sick are mostly better now (hundredish "left hospitalized" are stable), the disease has no name, no known cause and no apparent reason to fear it. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:57, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose As the creator and nommed updater, I agree with everyone else. Preliminary results indicate that the disease is not contagious and instead arises from contaminated water and/or milk, so although more people could also fall ill and this is a quite tragic turn of events. I don't think it will be enough to be major. Additionally, considering that there is both a more important Indian event and a global pandemic on ITN currently, I don't think it fits. Although cases have risen to 500, over 75% of them have now been discharged.MSG17 (talk) 14:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Almost completely contained, still 1 death. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 14:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's been a while and it has become abundantly clear that this is just a small poisoning incident. The cases are barely growing and there hasn't been a new death yet. Gex4pls (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait It looks like a pollution incident, possible organophosphates contaminating drinking water.  At most there has been one death.  If deaths regrettably increase or if some surprising mechanism is discovered, might be worth posting. Jehochman Talk 16:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Round two? This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 21:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Looks like a non-starter, newswise. – Sca (talk) 15:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - done and dusted, not news. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:38, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Pumza Dyantyi

 * Support Excellent "overnight article"! Fully referenced, no close paraphrasing seen. Ready for the main page. Yoninah (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Quality is sufficient for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 02:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short but sweet, nice to see a fully sourced article nominated. Gex4pls (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks fine. Gotitbro (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted, prose could use a little work but it's good enough - Dumelow (talk) 07:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Roger Moret

 * Support This article is short but passable. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Regards So  Why  10:37, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Udyavara Madhava Acharya

 * Support. Looks OK to me. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looking good for RD JW 1961   Talk  18:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , pardon the intrusion. This one is good to go to the homepage / RD. Ktin (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted Stephen 22:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Doug Scott

 * Support RD. The nominator has considerably improved the article, in particular by adding references (helped by the multitude of obituaries!). Thincat (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. Good work as ever, Ktin. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Blurb/RD: Chuck Yeager

 * Support blurb in principle, I just found out about this and haven't looked at the article. RIP. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article, unfortunately I have to oppose at the moment due to uncited paragraphs and no prose update for his death. This would be a damn shame to miss, however. (And yes, there is probably some level of dispute to whether he "really was" the first to break the sound barrier, but he is the canonical first supersonic.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb when the article is ready. Davey2116 (talk) 04:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Randy Kryn (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now, too many uncited paragraphs and whatnot. Support Blurb once fixed up Gex4pls (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why is this a blurb no-brainer exactly? Not to downplay his significance, but he was exceptionally old, and I'm not sure if he's still much of a household name. Considering John Glenn and John Lewis didn't meet blurb criteria, I'd like to see some rationale. As for the article, it's in better shape than I expected, though does need some work before it's main page ready. Nohomersryan (talk) 04:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All of the space firsts, from Armstrong to Shephard to Gagarin to Glenn, follow from his achievement of breaking the sound barrier. If anything, the fact that he lived for so long after his achievement makes this even more incredible and interesting; even if, for the sake of argument, no one knew who Chuck Yeager was anymore (doubtful, since I'm just shy of 24 and knew of him in high school), readers would be astounded to know that the person who broke the sound barrier was still alive for so long. Indeed, if this is a blurb the story it would bump off is the Indian strikes, which is a good target for Ongoing, so that argument against a blurb is moot here as well. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that John Glenn was the third man to orbit the earth; John Lewis, while an important member of the Big Six, was secondary to Martin Luther King Jr. in the civil rights movement; but Chuck Yeager was the first man to break the sound barrier. That said, while I would agree with a Yeager blurb, I don't think Yeager is a "no-brainer." NorthernFalcon (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Very minor point, but we no longer consider Newsweek a reliable source at all. Not that others have reported (eg NYtimes) but just as a reminder for the future. --M asem (t) 04:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality for now. When the article has been fixed, I would offer a weak support for blurb.  We have had a number of blurb deaths recently, but the deaths of major world figures seem to come in bunches, and Yeager certainly meets the definition of "transformational figure in their field", as Yeager is arguably the most famous post-World War II aircraft pilot in the world, as well as the holder of a major aviation first.  However, I think Yeager does suffer from having lived so long that his memory has been partially forgotten, particularly by the younger generations who perhaps are less aware of the significance of the sound barrier achievement.  I would caution against quickly posting this as a blurb until we've had more weigh-in from the rest of the world. NorthernFalcon (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on Blurb, support for RD A stretch to call him transformational, he was right person selected for the right flight. He doesn't clears the bar for blurb (which has been set very high), and this shows US bias. Albertaont (talk) 05:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough for the first part, but saying that breaking the sound barrier shows US bias is like saying the Apollo Program-Main Page shows US bias. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No, Neil Armstrong is very well known throughout the world. Chuck Yeager very much less so, even in other parts of the anglosphere. Albertaont (talk) 05:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I knew what he did, but my generally less-informed brother who remembers what Neil Armstrong is known for did not. He said he didn't care after I explained. Canadians who care remember the name, but he's not the Babe Ruth of aeronautics like Armstrong became (nor as obscure as the recently deceased Neil Armstrong). He's like Pat Patterson or Bruce Prichard to people who only remember Vincent Kennedy McMahon, dammit. Not biased to credit an American, that barrier was a problem for pilots and missiles across the planet. Early intercontinental champion, you could say. InedibleHulk (talk) 09:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Transformative figure, while I acknowledge there is US bias when nominated RD blurbs, I can see here that he is notable enough to merit a blurb and it so happens to be he's American. I'll fix up the article. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb His jet was fast, he just survived. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not to say piloting supersonic aircraft is easy, but many pilots since have, largely thanks to brilliant innovative engineers. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. Whilst notable, I don't see anything to indicate he was top of his field, and is only remembered for a single event. — O Still Small Voice of Clam 08:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb per VoC. If anything, it's an achievement attributable to the engineers who designed the plane. Yeager wasn't transformative in his own right. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources do not typically give engineers the glory, but those who take the risk and operate a new technology. Wikipedia follows the sources. 331dot (talk) 10:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not true. Unless there's something spectacular about the pilot's efforts, they tend to herald the feat, rather than the individual. This was how the Aberdeen Press and Journal recorded it when the news broke:
 * ""U.S. PLANE OUTPACES SOUND by Clifford Hulme, 11 June 1948: A U.S. Air Force rocket plane with four engines has been flown faster than sound "many times" since last October, the Air Secretary, Mr Symington, disclosed to-day. The speed of sound is 750 miles an hour at sea level, less at higher altitudes. The man who broke the sonic barrier is a twenty-five-year-old war pilot, Captain Yeager. The tests were made in California. Mr Symington gave the impression that the plane pierced the sonic wall on the flat and not in a dive. The previous U.S. record was 650.8 m.p.h. made last year. The U.S. Air Force will not claim altitude or speed records on Capt. Yeager's flight, said Mr Symington, who indicated that the rocket plane had also reached a hitherto unrecorded height. The plane is small enough to be launched from the bomb-bay of Superfortress.""


 * Which seems to focus primarily on the achievement, with the name of the pilot as a mention. In any case, while Wikipedia does follow the sources, it's up to us on this page to determine which individuals get blurbed, and the bar is rightly very high. I just don't see Yeager as transformative or the "Nelson Mandela" of his field. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb. Regardless of his own participation, Yeager was certainly the public face of a project which, in itself, was transformative. The analogy to an astronaut is a reasonable one. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose On quality, a lot of uncited paras here and other. Conflicted about a blurb if the issues are fixed, he is clearly notable in the US with a 'first' to his name but the notability doesn't go beyond that. Gotitbro (talk) 11:29, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb I'm baffled as to how this could be considered a no-brainer or how breaking the sound barrier is in any way comparable to being the first person to step foot on the Moon. He is nowhere near as well known as Armstrong. P-K3 (talk) 13:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb - In a field of highly competent test pilots - a category that includes other greats such as Jim McDivitt, Wally Schirra, Alan Shepard, and of course Neil Armstrong himself - he happened to be the one that broke the sound barrier. But that doesn't have the same impact to humanity as Neil being the first man on the Moon did. Great guy, but not a sui generis blurbable figure.--WaltCip- (talk)  13:42, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support blurb - He's not notable for only one event. He was a fighter ace, which he achieved in one day. He is most remembered for breaking the sound barrier, which is a landmark achievement in human history, and certainly more impressive than a career actor. -- <b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">Veggies</b> (<b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">talk</b>) 14:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Marked Ready The article has 66 citations, at least three were added in the last 24 hours.  The number of uncited paragraphs is a small fraction of the total.  There are no maintenance tags on the article.  It is rated B-class prior to the numerous updates of the last 24 hours.   As for "transformativeness", the fact that the death is front page news across the United States, and even on the BBC and ABC (Australia) websites at the moment (load them and ctrl-F for "Yeager"), indicates that the subject's legacy is very strong and that a blurb is appropriate. Jehochman Talk 14:25, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I opened to check and saw a wall of CN tags. it is definitely not ready, so I have removed that tag. Even one unsourced paragraph (outside the lede) is not appropriate for a bio, especially if editors are arguing for a blurb. --M asem  (t) 14:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * heavily tag bombed the article after I reviewed it. This is not WP:FAC, but it seems like some editors want to treat it that way because they like to set higher standards for topics related to the United States. Sigh.  The article quality is reasonably good and comparable to other articles we post here, and while it could be improved with more citations, none of the material lacking citations appears to be dubious. Jehochman Talk 14:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a bio, still under BLP (per the recent death aspect), and thus still subject to the same sourcing standards. And bios at ITN we expect quality sourcing (this is why many actors and the like tend to not get posted because their bios are not fully sourced). --M asem (t) 14:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're being too rigid. I agree that any potentially controversial fact in a bio must be cited.  Looking at the article, the missing cites are a bunch of nit picking.  The uncited statements could be removed and the article would remain intact and sufficient.  All Wikipedia articles are works in progress.  We should not let perfect be the enemy of good.  Our readers are looking for information about this person now.  We should deliver it on the home page. Jehochman Talk 15:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That they have to type "chuck yeager" in the search bar vs a click in the ITN box should not be a reason to rush through an article that is currently at poor quality just to have it on the front page. Too many times in the page that's been rushed (importance over quality) only to have to pull back. Readers can still find the article, its not like we're hiding the article from total exposure at all. --M asem (t) 15:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * To be clear, I don't think did anything unproductive.  THey tagged the article, but are now busy adding references.  That's good work.  Jehochman Talk 15:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I question your conceptual understanding of transformativeness if all that is required in your view is for the death to be front page news in that individual's country.--WaltCip- (talk)  14:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Is that 1969 Air Force photo the best pic to illustrate this? He's still generally remembered for breaking the sound barrier 22 years earlier in the Bell X-1 he named "Glamorous Glennis." – Sca (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2020 (UTC) →


 * The photo you suggest is much more interesting. Jehochman Talk 14:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose blurb The name is "household" probably for a narrow demographic - after the test flight he was a hero figure for numerous kids and got attached to a lot of toys and video games. But unlike, say, John Glenn, who expanded on his achievement even more by entering politics, Yeager didn't really do much else. He wasn't a transformational figure for that purpose, as others have suggested, the right man at the right time for that flight. --M asem (t) 14:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sean Connery was transformational because??? Chuck Yeager is such a cultural icon that he was featured in the movie The Right Stuff (film) in the first scenes of the film. "The name is household for a narrow demographic"?  Thanks for your ill-informed personal opinion.  If that's true, why is Chuck Yeager featured on the front page of every American newspaper at the moment.  Go ahead and point out any major United States newspaper website right now that doesn't contain the word "Yeager" on its home page.  I'll wait.  Jehochman Talk 15:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would consider myself part of that narrow demographic - an American youth with a bent in science/engineering/thrill seeking in that time period. I fully respect his name and the milestone, but I also recognize that unlike someone like John Glenn or Neil Armstrong, Yeager did not get much further recognition for most things outside this. Go a generation or so after me and its hard to find name recognition there at all. (Not that his fame was "fly by night", simply that history does not have the same recall as it had for Glenn or Armstrong). He further didn't "transform" the field of test flights, only became the name most associated with that. --M asem (t) 16:23, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb due to the massive achievement of breaking the sound barrier -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 15:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support That fool McGuckett sprayed runway foam all over Chuck Yeager's Acura! Now get posting, or I'll tear you up like a Kleenex at a snot party! etc, etc....  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Ready We currently have Sébastien Ogier as the featured ITN picture.  His article is rated C-class.  Yeager is rated B-class.  This anti-American bias has to stop.  Let's please post this.  If you want to really be a help, please add references where needed.  I support article quality improvement.  I don't support using different standards for different articles. Jehochman Talk 15:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't consider the assessment scales since those are done by Wikiprojects and have different standards. And its nothing against American here, just that we have a person that has been well documented for being an American "hero" but editors that have put this article together in the past failed to include references so there's a rush to add them now to fix that. That's not a bias against American bios, just sloppy sloppy editing from the past on American bios, which is not ITN's fault. --M asem (t) 15:47, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose blurb as he's just one of many people in the same field, as mentioned by many editors above. The fact he broke a record when many people were doing similar things doesn't make him "top of his field". Sébastien Ogier is not a relevant comparison, as that ITN is not for a death, but an ITNR event. Also don't believe this should have been marked as ready when there isn't a clear consensus to post. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Unmarked as Ready There is clearly no consensus to post a blurb (at the moment) and it isn't ready to post anyway due to a significant number of CN tags in it. If it's important it should be easy to cite, and if it's obscure or trivial it doesn't need to be there. Black Kite (talk) 15:43, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – (When issues fixed.) Breaking the sound barrier was a significant, and at least thematically transformative, event. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb, but oppose both for quality per Jehochman. Granted that my childhood was perhaps more focussed on aviation and aerospace programs than others, but he is and was was definitely a household name to me. There are, though, far too many CNs for the front page right now. -- a lad insane  <small style="color:#006600">(channel two)  16:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Though quality issues are present currently. Very notable guy. ~ Destroyer 🌀🌀 16:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose blurb - there is absolutely no way this guy meets the threshold when we wouldn't post Eddie Van Halen or Alex Trebek. I'd never heard of this man until today, and aside from being the first person to fly faster than sound (a rather arbitrary milestone IMO), his death was not unexpected, notable, nor has it resulted in an international outpouring of grief. He is not at the top of his field (unless "Test pilots" represents a substantial enough field). John Lennon's death is receiving more coverage today, and it happened 40 years ago! If this is posted as a blurb then it will show not only a horrific American bias, but a pile-on for hardly-game-changing military veterans. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 16:48, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The horrific Americans raise their ugly heads once again. Help! — Sca (talk) 17:10, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment just to clarify, the speed of sound was not some arbitrary milestone, as if we picked a number because it sounded cool. Flying at exactly the speed of sound means that you're perpetually flying on top of your own pressure wave, which increases its strength and instability and puts it directly on top of your own plane, which is death to aircraft, especially back then.  This effect increased the closer you were to the speed of sound, which is why it was a major barrier to early pilots and aircraft designers. NorthernFalcon (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose I should have clarified that comment better. I agree breaking the speed of sound is a milestone for aircraft. I don't agree that it is for the pilot that happened to be in that aircraft when the test was scheduled. -  Floydian  τ ¢ 17:34, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd never heard of this man until today... What are you saying, that your ignorance is an argument? -- <b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">Veggies</b> (<b style="color: blue; font-family: Times New Roman;">talk</b>) 20:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * What are you saying, that because you know him by name that he's a household name like every other non-head-of-state death blurb that we post? -  Floydian  τ ¢ 20:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Update: About 70% of the citations needed have been supplied. The article now has 80 citations. There are 5-6 cn tags remaining. Please help fix them. Jehochman Talk 17:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose blurb, support RD: I usually groan when people reject things due to being American-centric as I usually think those people go a bit too far, but I just don't think Yeager is as transformative a figure in American aviation, let alone the world.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 17:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, at the time, it had never been done, and people weren't entirely sure what would happen if it was. Some WWII piston-engine fighters, in high-speed dives, had encountered a violent shaking problem near the speed of sound. (There was some speculation the a German Me 262 jet might have exceeded the speed of sound in diving, but this was never substantiated.) – Sca (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb. I think I have to come down on the oppose blurb side, but I think it is a close call. I'm persuaded by what I see here. I would note that "we didn't post X, so we shouldn't post Y" is a poor argument against posting. 331dot (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Blurb when article cn's are finalised (5 left -v- 106 references). Absolutely a leader in his field JW 1961   Talk  18:28, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I just fixed the last 6 citation needed tags. As far as I know, there are no remaining issues with the article. Jehochman Talk 18:45, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Attention needed Could an uninvolved admin please decide whether to post this to RD or a blurb? At least the article update and quality issues have been resolved. Jehochman Talk 18:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD, discussion on blurb can continue. Good work on fixing the CN tags. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - This is a cluster. We have roughly equal numbers of people, on one side claiming that Yeager is transformative, and on another side claiming that he isn't. This is why the sui generis discussion took place in terms of what is considered suitable for posting a recent death as a blurb. There needs to be a clear dividing line wherein the discussion is not swayed about by subjectivity and the numbers of people gathering on one side of an argument versus another. As long as we don't have that line, we'll always be mired in this mess. --WaltCip- (talk)  19:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the issue is that people are divided on what "transformative figure in their field" means, or how it applies to this specific case, which is why we have this division. I'm not sure we can or should define it more stringently than that--those five words speak for themselves--and while for some emotions run high, I think this discussion process leading to a consensus or non-consensus has to be the way to go.  Some people truly believe that Chuck Yeager was transformative for his field, other people believe he was not, and that difference of opinion is okay. NorthernFalcon (talk) 20:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * And worth pointing out that where there is such an even argument, there is no tragedy in posting nor omitting. (Buridan's ass? Bike shed? I forget).  GreatCaesarsGhost   20:53, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb Notable yes, transformative no. I don't see how his feat transformed aviation or, at the very least, exerted major changes in the production of new aircraft. And frankly speaking, the record is mere trivia with the sound barrier being an arbitrary threshold. An example of first-time event event with transformative impact is Alexei Leonov's spacewalk, which literally changed the history of astronautics (of course, we posted it).--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * No opinion on blurb, but I suggest whoever does ultimately try to evaluate this for consensus ignore comments from people who say breaking the sound barrier is an "arbitrary threshold", as they do not know what they are talking about. Or at least don't know what the word "arbitrary" means. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:16, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making me stupid. I didn't have a clue what the sound barrier is before noticing your comment and checking afterwards. Highly educational warning from you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb I guess you die a hero or live long enough to have dopes dismiss you with "Garsh, what's the 'sound barrier?'"  GreatCaesarsGhost   21:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please brief by reading Sound barrier.  Yeager was the first pilot to break the sound barrier in level, controlled flight, something that many had considered "very difficult" or "impossible" until then.  If that's not transformative, I don't know what is. Jehochman Talk 21:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think people don't get the point of my comment but that's their own problem. The sound barrier was known to be breakable through whipping long before he did it while operating an aircraft. So, he didn't prove that something physically impossible was, in fact, possible but provided another instance of how it can be done. Furthermore, similar problems occur at any speed higher than the speed of sound and that makes any improvement in the maximum achievable speed a new threshold on its own. Putting this aside, those claiming that this is transformative have provided absolutely nothing to support how his feat transformed aviation. Finally, Andy Green has become the first person to break the sound barrier while navigating a land vehicle. Does this make him blurbworthy when he dies? It's the same here.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Dick Allen

 * Oppose Seeing a lot of uncited info in the career. Gotitbro (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 *  Support All sourced up and ready to go, post this one before it gets stale! Gex4pls (talk) 04:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've beefed up the citations. What other tags are missing? Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 21:39, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Still missing quite a few citations. I'll go in and add a few tags later today. Gex4pls (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , How does the article look now? Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 21:13, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems perfect, I'll change my oppose to a support. Thanks, Gex4pls (talk) 02:46, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Still seeing some dangling sentences (without refs) in the career section and the statistics table needs sources. Gotitbro (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The stats table comes from Baseball Reference (which is cited elsewhere in the article) and I wasn't sure on where to place the citation in relation to the overall table. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 05:01, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've stuck cites on the table itself, and cited more spots in the career. Too late now for the main page, but at least the article is much improved in honor of Allen. Dralwik&#124;Have a Chat 21:36, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's still not older than the last RD currently on the Main Page, so technically it still qualifies be posted.  I added a few more refs.  However, I tagged a ref needed at the start of the "Chicago White Sox" section regarding the statement about his attitude and changing positions.—Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * X mark.svg N Stale—Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

(Stale) RD: Natalie Desselle-Reid

 * Oppose unreferenced stub. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:18, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per The Rambling Man. I tried to help by adding citations to the "Filmography" section, but I may have done more harm than good. Either way, it is a stub and would need to be expanded. Aoba47 (talk) 22:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Too short and still missing references. Gotitbro (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Exactly as says. Yoninah (talk) 00:40, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I've cited the remainder of the text, could someone go in and finish up the filmography? Thanks in advance, Gex4pls (talk) 18:41, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The remaining items in the filmography that are not cited are films that don't have Wikipedia articles, for which reliable sources that contain the role are difficult to find. What can we do? Remove the entries? Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * X mark.svg N Stale—Bagumba (talk) 08:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

(Attention needed) 2020 Venezuelan parliamentary election

 * Surprise! – Sca (talk) 14:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are we using here? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 16:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 'Cuz it's an aside. – Sca (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb or Altblurb As with any other election in a major country, article appears well sourced. There are controversies with this election which are addressed but still kept factual in the altblurb. Albertaont (talk) 17:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support for main blurb, as it is customary for this type of election. I'd suggest more information from the introduction is reflected, such as the rejection of the results by other countries, but this is probably one of the most neutral and non-controversial blurbs, so it should do. --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Not really big on venezuelan politics, but this seems important enough and controversial. Gex4pls (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Support on quality but shouldn't we like include in the blurb a mention that the election was illegitimate? I genuinely don't know post elections from for example North Korea, but we don't post them as is, right? CoronaOneLove (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't post judgements about the legitimacy of the election. The current President of the United States and his supporters say the 2020 election he lost is illegitimate. We post rigged Russian elections. 331dot (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But that it was boycotted is not a judg(e)ment, it's a fact, from the RS stories I've read. So it should somehow be included in the blurb, IMO. – Sca (talk) 23:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mentioning a boycott is different than saying the election was illegitimate(as the OP said). 331dot (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mentioning a boycott is different than saying the election was illegitimate(as the OP said). 331dot (talk) 10:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose results section is tagged as unreferenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per Rambling, need sources there. Also, seeing two blurbs here not really sure which one is better. Gotitbro (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt blurb Seems more apt and the referencing issues have now been addressed. Gotitbro (talk) 11:17, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment The blurb should mention that the election was considered not free and fair by the UN, EU, and several other international organizations. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment The Results section has been referenced and updated. --NoonIcarus (talk) 09:50, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the changes :) --<b style="color:#00B">cyrfaw</b> (<small style="color: green;">talk ) 14:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Welcome! I'll look forward to help out with any other possible improvements. --NoonIcarus (talk) 14:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Nearly all of the seats of the Assembly have been confirmed, and the quality of the article is good enough to post. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The international reactions of the election should be added as well, as there are divided reactions across the world, including Latin America. Add in a different section of the article. --<b style="color:#00B">cyrfaw</b> (<small style="color: green;">talk ) 14:49, 11 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Fake parliamentary election in a non major country does not deserve a blurb. Tradedia talk 04:56, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment What is holding this up from being posted? The article quality has improved and the event is WP:ITN/R. This is about to get stale. Marked this as Attention needed. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 02:28, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Soedardjat Nataatmadja

 * Support Article is in good shape, all paragraphs cited. Yoninah (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Paul Sarbanes

 * Support Very good nom, the table might need some width fixes though. Gotitbro (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks good. Here's the NYT obit with more info which might be an useful source as well. Regards So  Why  13:13, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – Seems well-written. – Sca (talk) 14:12, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well sourced and ready to go. Gex4pls (talk) 15:05, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Peter Alliss

 * Oppose There's a large amount of uncited content in the prose and the tables also need citations. P-K3 (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose All stats are unsourced along with some uncited sentences here and there. Gotitbro (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Yet another rd nom in need of some better sourcing (I'm too lazy and too terrible at this to do it myself, so kudos to whoever can clean it up) Gex4pls (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Definitely, I'm no golf aficionado so it was just because it popped up on my news feed and I have know Alliss commentating on golf for almost my entire adult life. Shame golf editors (especially UK ones) can't help out. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:22, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(Withdrawn) Juliari Batubara

 * Oppose – Country (Indonesia) not ID'd in blurbs. Juliari "could face life imprisonment or the death penalty if convicted." Posting might be appropriate if convicted & sentenced. – Sca (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on principle - he has only been arrested, no trial has yet been held. It would be different if we were talking the sitting PM of India or the like. --M asem (t) 14:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think you meant Indonesia in your comment above. Gotitbro (talk) 17:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We don't have one. The last time we had a prime minister was about 54 years ago. Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 23:46, 6 December 2020
 * I see, but my comment was in the context that Masem probably confused the Indonesian nom for Indian. And please sign your comment above. Gotitbro (talk) 08:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reminding me. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 10:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * NO, I think Masem was implying that if this "event" had been the PM of India it would have been more notable. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I guess an Indonesian example (like its president) would've been more apt then. Gotitbro (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) 2020 World Rally Championship

 * Support alt-blurb 3 Largely okay, needs more sources in the results section though. Gotitbro (talk) 13:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Added sources from the FIA. Unnamelessness (talk) 14:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support slow week This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment two things, we don't need "in rallying" because the sport is in the title of the award, and second we don't put year in the title of the award, so something like ""Sébastien Ogier (pictured) and Julien Ingrassia win the World Rally Championship while Hyundai win the manufacturers' title." But since we already have about three hundred blurb options, I thought I'd just toss in one that was properly formed. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:57, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Made some tweaks. Unnamelessness (talk) 02:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Marked as ready as they were no real oppositions for the last 24 hours. Would suggest ALT III personally. Unnamelessness (talk) 13:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Tabaré Vázquez

 * Oppose, article has vast swathes of unreferenced material. A lot of work will be needed to get this mainpage-ready - Dumelow (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD after excellent referencing work by TDKR Chicago 101 - Dumelow (talk) 12:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Referencing issues all over. Gotitbro (talk) 11:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, Oppose blurb just not seeing blurb worthy significance here. Gotitbro (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * : Comment, I would not oppose that he wouldn't be posted as blurb, even though he was a transformative Uruguayan president. The article is a mess but until the middle of next week I will not have the time that I would like to dedicate to improve it, so I would be grateful if someone could give me a helping hand, to me and some who are doing some specific editions. Alsoriano97 (talk) 22:04, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD Looks fine now. Gotitbro (talk) 11:29, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Challenge accepted and accomplished (hopefully). --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You did a great job! Thank you very much!! I'm trying to improve it in my little free time, so I will try to keep improving it. Alsoriano97 (talk) 12:36, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb because I'm not seeing the regional or international significance necessary. Oppose RD as well, because the article is missing a ton of citations, and furthermore says virtually nothing about his second term in office. NorthernFalcon (talk) 00:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD tag Made ref improvements., , : Made article improvements for RD tag approval. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC
 * Support after ref improvements. --NoonIcarus (talk) 12:51, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good work cleaning up article, looks fine for RD now JW 1961   Talk  14:28, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Like it was never even unreffed Gex4pls (talk) 15:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Belinda Bozzoli

 * Oppose Too short on political career. Gotitbro (talk) 11:30, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not much time to edit today but I have expanded a little more here - Dumelow (talk) 14:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support It is now long enough for RD. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 10:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks ok for RD now following improvements JW 1961   Talk  14:41, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Short but decent article, well sourced and well written. Gex4pls (talk) 15:11, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Well done to all who worked on the article. Lefcentreright  Talk &#124;   Contribs   &#124;   Global 15:31, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Hayabusa2

 * Comment I see a couple of uncited paragraphs in the "Rovers" section. Mlb96 (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Not many sample returns in history. Albertaont (talk) 21:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Seems like the perfect science achievement to put ITN, though from a cursory glance appears to have some referencing problems. Gex4pls (talk) 22:56, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality due to various unreferenced paragraphs. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:20, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above, would support if referencing is fixed. A nitpick but "Science Alert" shouldn't be up there. Gotitbro (talk) 03:19, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Hayabusa2 has not returned to earth and its mission has been extended. The sample return capsule has returned. The blurb needs changes. Support in principle but few paragraphs needs references. -Nizil (talk) 06:53, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added altblurb to indicate that the original parameters (returning samples to earth) is complete. If they do extend the mission, we're not talking about destinations until 2026 or 2031, so well beyond the current issue. --M asem  (t) 07:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Nizil makes an excellent point. Hayabusa2 still has about half its fuel left and it appears that it will continue to explore the solar system, visiting other bodies such as Venus, until the fuel runs out.  As the nomination seems confused about this, we should not rush at this until the details and outcome are clear. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * There was one original mission for this craft: go to the asteroid, get samples, go back to earth, and deliver sample. That they found they have more fuel left over to possibly do it again is great (a similar story of the Mars rovers) but the original mission has been completed, and if these extended missions are taken, it would be years before any "success" is determine. --M asem (t) 14:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alblurb ITNR and no serious quality issues now. Brandmeistertalk  16:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per Brandmeister — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orbitalbuzzsaw (talk • contribs) 16:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – Blurb should say it's Japanese. – Sca (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt, important mission. There are a few paragraphs needing refs, though. <b style="border:1px solid #0800aa"> Nixinova </b> <b style="border:1px solid #006eff"> T </b> <b style="border:1px solid #00a1ff"> C </b>  04:46, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support alt, per nom.-- P-K3 (talk) 19:44, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 20:14, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: James Odongo

 * Support Just passes basic RD-needs, would like to see more info about his activities as a Bishop though. Gotitbro (talk) 11:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ok for RD JW 1961   Talk  12:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Ferenc Tóth (politician)

 * Support A bit short but RD-passable. Gotitbro (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: David Lander

 * Oppose Basically a mostly uncited mess ATM. Gotitbro (talk) 03:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Sadly about 40% uncited. Gex4pls (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Jayant Meghani

 * Oppose practically a stub. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per TRM. Bio section = 90 words. – Sca (talk) 14:16, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose While notability is not necessarily a criteria, this person's page was created for the purposes of RD and is less than a day old. Albertaont (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , there is a subtle difference. It is not true that notability is NOT a criteria for WP:ITNRD. It is assumed that anyone by virtue of having a Wikipedia article (obviously non PRODed or non AFDed) is inherently notable. Now, with this being stated, imo, it does not matter if the article was recently created as long as it meets the notability guidelines to exist as an article within WP. Hope this helps. Ktin (talk) 06:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think there is an issue about notability. --Gazal world (talk) 06:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support The article covers enough basic info about a person and his works (300+ words). It is a start-class article in my opinion. I will try to add additional info. -Nizil (talk) 06:21, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for now. There's no issue with an article being created posthumously, RD rules still apply. But that said, it is currently effectively a stub. The "Works" section is really just a list, formatted to look like prose. More info on his life and work is needed in the bio section. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Bsrely long enough, could use some more expansion. ~ Destroyeraa 🌀 16:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Narinder Singh Kapany

 * Support Looks generally okay to me. Gotitbro (talk) 03:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Mostly fine. The artist section is not fully supported by the single reference provided. As near as I can tell, he was not a serious artist, so I wonder if that should be stricken from the lede. We could certainly call him an art patron.   GreatCaesarsGhost   03:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , done. Removed artist from the lede. Agree, primary focus should be on the physicist portion. Added another source as well. Ktin (talk) 04:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks alright to me. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go.  GreatCaesarsGhost   12:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Montenegrin PM

 * Oppose for now, the personal article needs more references, the PM of of Montenegro article has only 1 reference (to an article on the PM of Kosovo) JW 1961   Talk  16:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that this news is important enough for publication, also i think that the main article is more informative, as well more referenced than the recently published article on the new Lithuanian PM, for example. -WalterII (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes of course it is important enough. It was the article sourcing quality I had reservations about.  The article on Zdravko Krivokapić is now improved enough for the main page, but, I would still have concerns that the PM article has only a single source  JW 1961   Talk  15:33, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Since this is not a normal electoral change, it should be explained in the blurb how he came to power; also an uncommon acronym (DPS) shouldn't be in there. Gotitbro (talk) 16:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Now that the referencing issues have been fixed, would still to see an alternate blurb though. Gotitbro (talk) 17:28, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Weak oppose I support the idea of a blurb, once the issues Joseywales1961 raised have been resolved. I also agree with Gotitbro's comment on the potential blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 17:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support All citation needed tags have been resolved. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose we already featured the elections, but it's a slow week This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This is a significant news about regime change by a democratically election. --Tensa Februari (talk) 02:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Changes of heads of state/government (whoever holds actual power) are (such as this one) WP:ITN/R, i.e., their significance is already known only the article quality needs to be fine. Also, this particular change was not through an election but internal parliament shuffling. Gotitbro (talk) 04:48, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The new PM and his cabinet were formally voted in the parliament, following the results of the 30 August parliamentary election (negotiations on the formation of the new government lasted for three months), which resulted in fall from power of the DPS of Milo Đukanović, which had ruled the country since the introduction of the multi-party system in 1990. -WalterII (talk) 13:35, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This information is of merit considering that the former ruling party firmly ruled for 30 years, that is, from the very start of multi-party system in Montenegro. Additionally, the article has been updated and it looks better now.  Sadkσ  (talk is cheap)  02:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose from read of the article, does not seem like an "independent" in the regular sense, could support if WP:NPOV. Albertaont (talk) 03:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - The article has been significantly improved, and the news is important due to the overthrow of the authoritarian regime after 30 years.--WEBDuB (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Per comment above this one Elserbio00 (talk) 17:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted. I removed Prime Minister from the latter portion of the blurb as posted as it seemed redundant, and I left off the last portion of the proposed blurb as it seemed unnecessary if we are stating that he's the first independent. 331dot (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maria Fyfe

 * Weak support seems brief but what's there is ok. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 11:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Taut but RD passable. Gotitbro (talk) 11:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So taut it's thin. – Sca (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Alison Lurie

 * Comment - The sourcing is very bad. There are entire sections without a single ref. This article needs a lot of work to be ready for posting.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Agree with comment above, sources needed for 3 sections, as well as numerous statements throughout article. Not to mention an orange tag. Gex4pls (talk) 01:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per above and could also do well with MOS:LAYOUT edits. Gotitbro (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have added citations to the "Awards" section and changed the "Selected novels" section to a "Bibliography" one with further citations. Apologies if these edits are not constructive as I usually do not edit these types of articles. Aoba47 (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support . It's been massively improved (thanks ), but still not sufficiently comprehensive as to her literary impact. I've added what I could but more is needed. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:49, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I would do more, but I am not familiar with how this kind of article should be structured. I agree with you that it is not comprehensive with her literary impact (or writing career in general). Aoba47 (talk) 19:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think there's enough in there now about her life and work for a full-throated support. (Not to toot my own horn re: the additions, of course :) ) Important, Pulitzer-winning novelist with obits in all major English-language papers, and would be a nice corrective the pretty egregious male dominance of RD these days. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 20:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * support - seems ready after improvements.BabbaQ (talk) 20:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Bill Fitsell

 * Support Looks good. Gotitbro (talk) 03:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Jutta Lampe

 * Support good enough for RD. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 22:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support This one looks good to go for RD JW 1961   Talk  00:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality is good enough. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 01:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Fine for an RD. Gotitbro (talk) 03:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Betsy Wade

 * Support Looks fine for an RD, though could do well with an infobox. Gotitbro (talk) 15:47, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak support just about adequate. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 16:05, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. The career section, particularly the bottom half, suffers from WP:PROSELINE. In 1972...., In 1974 ...., In 1987 ...... A round of copy-edits would be good. Also, the 'Spencer' test -- currently, the article has a lot of positions, and some notable firsts, which is good. But, the article should add some of Ms Wade's works as well. E.g. what notable news topics did she cover? Some elaboration of her Pultizer winning work? I think the article is almost there, but, needs some work to get it to homepage / RD. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 16:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support Running a bit thin on sources and some grammatical issues per above, but it seems passable. Gex4pls (talk) 16:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I was going to nominate this article just now! Article is in good condition, great length and sourcing is good enough. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:24, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Dharampal Gulati

 * Comment Mahashay is an honorific not a name, should be removed from the title/lead/ib per WP:NCIN. Gotitbro (talk) 04:00, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , If some other knowledgeable editors want to chime in and / or even go directly make the move, I will not object. None of the articles that I have read so far seem to indicate this, and I do not want to be guilty of WP:OR Ktin (talk) 04:07, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Removing honorifics doesn't fall under OR. Many Indian sources (which are used in the article) don't bother removing honorifics. His WP:LEGALNAME is listed without the honorific in official company filings. Gotitbro (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I will admit, I am not knowledgeable about this topic. I do not want to use a collins dictionary link to make a translation myself as you have done above, to say that it is a honorific. I am not saying you are wrong. All I am saying is if there is a more knowledgeable editor (including yourself) and they want to move the article, I will not object. My sources have been The Hindu, Indian Express, ThePrint. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 04:20, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Edit: For what it is worth, the Padma Awards site here has him called out as Mahashay Dharampal Gulati. Also seen here in the notification. Seems like the above move was hasty. Ktin (talk) 04:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've gone ahead and made a WP:BOLD move as I am pretty sure about this. Yeah, Padma Awards add their own numerous honorifics (for e.g. Shri) to names so not surprising. Anyway WP:LEGALNAME is also a precedent here which is fulfilled by the company records. Gotitbro (talk) 04:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , Shri is equivalent to Mr. in this context, and should not be misconstrued. E.g. Shri John Chambers. I am always weary about statements like "I am pretty sure about this" as a leading statements here, since that is the definition of WP:OR while WP:RS sources say otherwise. But anyways, I do not have too strong an opinion on this one, unless a different editor wants to chime in one way or the other. Ktin (talk) 05:14, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Seems fine. Ref spot check is good.130.233.213.199 (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Decently referenced article, suitable for RD JW 1961   Talk  11:58, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:36, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) Ongoing: 2020 Indian farmers' protest

 * Support The article is light on the scale of the protests (no mention of number of protesters), but its definitely in non-indian news as well over the past week. There are sympathy protests with the farmers outside of India, to a lesser extent. Albertaont (talk) 04:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Number of protestors added. DTM (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support on significance, Wait due to grammar issues. The article could use a thorough grammar and MOS cleanup. 45.251.33.78 (talk) 10:23, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One round of copyediting complete. DTM (talk) 13:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Could use some more cleaning. "Awards return", "announced to return his award" and "Chief minister of Punjab" not being properly capitalised are 3 grammar/MOS issues in just the last 2 lines of the article and a subsection's title. The article may need some editors who focus on grammar and MOS. 45.251.33.78 (talk) 04:24, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support in principle, oppose on quality what exactly are the provisions/policies in the bills that cause concern, and what specifically are the demands? – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 12:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I have listed the demands in its own section 2020 Indian farmers' protest#List_of_farmer_demands. The provisions are elaborated in the clearly linked parent article Indian farm reforms 2020. However as the demands show, the demands encompass more than just the three new laws. Nevertheless, changes can be made as you said. DTM (talk) 12:39, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment – RS coverage seems slight, although AP carried a photo series with brief descriptions of protest conditions. – Sca (talk) 14:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "RS coverage seems slight" — seriously? DTM (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * One source listed above. – Sca (talk) 15:42, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support once MOS issues have been fixed because... yikes This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 15:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article quality seems to have improved; it's not perfect and I encourage continued work, but it looks passable. It is very well referenced, and seems to cover well all of the main issues.  Seems like a good target for an Ongoing link. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I was going to oppose this yesterday as "tens of thousands" is not a high percentage in India and the quality of the article wasn't there, but after separately reading that these were in the 100k's of ppl now and seeing that incorporated into this article as well as the further expansion, this is clearly significant with the events from last weekend (road blockages, etc.) --M asem (t) 15:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose on quality grounds. The article may be well-referenced, but it is poorly written. One of the purposes of ITN is "To showcase quality Wikipedia content on current events," and I do not believe the article meets that standard.  -- Calidum  15:32, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I think I've fixed most of the writing and grammar issues; there were a number of them. Black Kite (talk) 01:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: don't we usually blurb first and then consider ongoing later? Could a blurb be proposed for this item? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The protests have been going on since August so a blurb would be "stale" but they have ramped up over last weekend. There is no requirement for a ongoing to start with a blurb. --M asem  (t) 14:08, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This was my thought as well. Usually if something is newsworthy enough for Ongoing, it starts with a blurb. Readers won't necessarily know what this is about, but if we give them a headline story first, then bump it down to Ongoing once that's rolled off, it's much better. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - the protests follow the 26 November 24-hour strike by 250 million people (= 25 crore) according to trade unions' estimates (Deccan Herald; Tribune (Chandigarh)). Without a police (or BJP) counterclaim, the estimate so far appears to be unchallenged. This does sound like a world record. The Delhi ongoing blockade is gradually attracting more and more worldwide media attention. I did a bit of tidying in the article. Boud (talk) 02:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Clarification - I see that there are two separate articles Indian general strike of 2020 and 2020 Indian farmers' protest. I only saw Indian general strike of 2020 up to now. The ongoing action is that of 2020 Indian farmers' protest. I support 2020 Indian farmers' protest for the reasons I stated, but "did a bit of tidying" applies to the strike article, not to the farmers' protest article. Boud (talk) 02:17, 5 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - please could a blurb be proposed, as per MSGJ above. It should be blurbed before it goes to Ongoing. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Blurb1 proposal:
 * In India, a quarter of a billion strike for 24 hours and 100,000 continue with a farmers' siege of New Delhi.
 * Boud (talk) 20:36, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comments - since the BBC says "hundreds of thousands", we could put 200,000, following the minimal literal interpretation policy that seems to be the preferred en.Wikipedia standard. But this is not the place to dispute numbers, so 100,000 would seem safer to me. A tricky thing for the blurb is the historical ambiguity in the word "Indians" - people of India versus Native Americans, which is why I avoided the word. Boud (talk) 20:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC) I fixed the typo (seige/siege) and posted the blurb above, and removed 'add' from the 'ongoing' parameter since otherwise the blurb would not display. Boud (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Journalism rule: Never assume anything. We definitely should not guess at the number of protesting farmers. (And the blurb is sensationalized in this respect.) Topic getting stale. – Sca (talk) 14:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've no idea what "assume" is supposed to apply to - these numbers are from the sources. India Today says 200-300,000 farmers have besieged Delhi. As for "stale", the next national strike is planned for 8 December. There's no sign of the farmers giving up. Boud (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Is there a reason this hasnt been posted? We have gone straight to on-going in the past, and a blurb just belabors the point since it would just be an attempt to capture what is going on today. Added altblurb 2 if blurb seems sensational. Albertaont (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether with a blurb or directly to Ongoing, this should be posted. There seems to be a last-minute objection from Sca, but the objection lacks explanation and is difficult to understand in comparison to the article. Boud (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest you rewind your watch. – Sca (talk) 17:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Let's quote the source(s) on "hundreds of thousands," then. Let's not pull a number out of the air, however reasonable it might seem. – Sca (talk) 17:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * India Today
 * BBC News
 * Business Standard 1.5 to 2 lakh = 150,000 to 200,000.
 * Boud (talk) 21:33, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment This is an ongoing siege of the government of the biggest democracy in the world, it's well-covered in en.Wikipedia by the usual criteria, and we have a strong (not perfect) consensus to post. Boud (talk) 16:42, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose blurb – It seems very appropriate for Ongoing, but not for a blurb. Factors include lack of reported casualties and its essentially parochial character, regardless of whatever numbers may be guessed at – and the lack of general RS confirmation. – Sca (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether this is posted with a blurb or immediately as Ongoing is a minor issue. Regarding deaths or injuries ("casualties"): Wikipedia ITN is not intended to be a tabloid where blood is required for coverage. Regarding "parochial" - India is the world's biggest democracy. There are plenty of sources: claiming otherwise won't make them disappear. This is not the USopedia or UKopedia. Boud (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The world's most populous democracy. – Sca (talk) 23:25, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Are we missing something right here? There doesn't seem to be opposition (the only oppose was for quality issues that had long been fixed). Do we have conflicts of interest which prevent this from being posted? Albertaont (talk) 04:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * altblurb &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:33, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Pull The article seems to be quite poor quality.  I just read it to understand the issue, as it had not appeared in any news report that I'd read or seen, unlike Brexit say, which is all over the news.  The article kept talking about the "mandi" system as a key demand of the farmers but doesn't explain it and we don't have an article.  After some research, I find a source which explains that these mandis are local markets for produce – the sort of topic that we might cover under a English title like marketplace or agricultural marketing.  The word seems to be Hindi but this is the English-language Wikipedia.  The article uses other foreign words like Gherao, Dharna and Raasta roko which will likewise be incomprehensible to our English-language readership.
 * Now, this may not just be a matter of language. While searching the BBC for this topic, the main article I found was India farmers: Misleading content shared about the protests from the BBC Reality Check unit.  This explains that misinformation about this matter is being spread deliberately online.  As we therefore need to be extra vigilant, we should not be promoting the topic on our main page without more scrutiny.  Getting it all written in English would be a start.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 20:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep There is no requirement for an en.Wikipedia article to be necessarily written in US or UK English, it can perfect well be written in Indian English, especially for a topic about the world's most populous democracy, in which English is an official language, but diverges in ways that are unsurprising when a huge number of people use the language regularly. The boundary of when a word counts purely in one language or not is fluid.
 * Misinformation occurs on almost any topic that is newsworthy. Should we remove the COVID-19 related links from the main page because there are anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists who think COVID-19 is a hoax? Obviously not. You are welcome to edit the article to improve the understandability for English speakers whose knowledge of English is restricted to only the UK and US versions and who are upset that a part of the world that Britain massively pillaged from to build its wealth has dared to develop its own, rich variety of English.
 * There seems to be a hint here that the argument is that brown-skinned Oriental people who speak another variety of English than UK or US English seem to be organising mass civil disobedience because they're incapable of understanding that they've been politically manipulated and misinformed. That would not be a valid reason for removing the link. Mahatma Gandhi responded to that over 70 years ago. Boud (talk) 01:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I am quite familiar with Indian English – usages such as "updation" and "doing the needful". But, as that article explains, this should not be confused with Hinglish.  Boud's harangue demonstrates the reward that one will get for making such updates.  दिल्ली अभी दूर है. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:44, 8 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Pull – Per previous and my posts above, this one time I support pulling the blurb. This smacks of an overblown cause celebre. The AP photo series of three days ago was very good at illustrating the event(s) but not really informative at all. – Sca (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't pull. I see little wrong with the article myself, and this is clearly a very major deal and ongoing headline news in India. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Rafer Johnson

 * Oppose Way to many unsourced statements. Gex4pls (talk) 02:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Half the article is unreferenced. Gotitbro (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article references have been improved - looks good to go. Joofjoof (talk) 04:40, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * could you check this? Joofjoof (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * @Joofjoof yeah, it kind of looks OK now, but unfortunately I think the boat has probably sailed on this one. His death was on December 2, but the oldest RD entry currently on the main page is dated December 4. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh well, that happens. Thanks anyway. Joofjoof (talk) 23:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

(Blurb posted) RD: Valéry Giscard d'Estaing

 * Support This may be blurb worthy, had massive impact on European politics. Albertaont (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The article needs some more references. I added CN tags at honors but I see there are more unsourced paragraphs throughout the article. A blurb is possible, indeed, once the article is fixed. --Tone 23:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added sources and the article should be looking good for a blurb right now.--TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose for now, way too many uncited sentences and paragraphs. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 23:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added the sources and made sure everything is cited. Should be good for a blurb. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Blurb, not enough coverage/impact of death and funeral. Contrast with Diego Maradona's death which now has doctors' offices being raided by the police. Abductive  (reasoning) 01:26, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Recognized for his pro-European stance, but criticized for his aloofness. (He died of covid-19 complications.) Mathsci (talk) 01:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Would support blurb on significance (not every death has to be of Maradona standard) but the article and its referencing is just too poor, whole paras and sections are missing any cites at all. Gotitbro (talk) 02:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed all the issues and article should be looking good. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb now. Gotitbro (talk) 13:45, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * RD is for deaths that aren't important enough for blurbs, such as this one. Importance means; a stand-alone article on the person's death and/or funeral could be supported. Note the distinguishing between the person and their death. Abductive  (reasoning) 07:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you put your reply in the wrong place. Gotitbro (talk) 13:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb subject to quality standards being met. Important French politician of the 60s and 70s. Mjroots (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose never going to be satisfactory. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 10:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How about now? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Splendid work so I can support for RD without hesitation. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 13:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Also Oppose even for RD until citing is improved, way too much uncited in there now. JW 1961   Talk  11:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC) Good job on the fixing, post posting blurb Support  JW 1961   Talk  14:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support blurb Former president of a major country, gaining significant coverage and I will work on the article to make it up to date. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb Former president of a permanent member state of the United Nations Security Council should merit a blurb in principle. There are people who become transformative because of their work and people who are made transformative because of their office. He belongs to the latter.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:22, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but that makes no sense; by that logic Gordon Brown or François Hollande would warrant a blurb when their time comes. Holding a notable job doesn't confer automatic notability on the holder, it just puts the holder into a position in which they're potentially able to do notable things. &#8209; Iridescent 13:30, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * After posting blurbs for the deaths of some office-holders in the United States just because it's a large and powerful country, I don't see a reason why the death of a former leader of another large and powerful country should be omitted. I was one of the fiercest opposers to lowering the bar for death blurbs when we introduced RD and I still have relatively high criteria but it's simply not equitable to apply double standards given the mistakes made in the past.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 13:50, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Kiril and it is also important to mention Giscard d'Estaing's works for the European Union and his presidency during France's modernizing shift as the NYT remembered him. Also worth mentioning Chirac's RD blurb was only largely opposed based on article quality and when India's PM Atal Bihari Vajpayee died in 2018, he also had a blurb posted. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 13:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree, ITNC has a bias towards American officeholders. He is more notable than many American non-President officeholders that have been given a blurb. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 14:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb agree with reasons above, and article is well sourced now. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support article quality is sufficient. Agnostic on blurb/RD.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 13:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support RD only Not one of those rare cases where a blurb is necessary. This is what RD is for.-- P-K3 (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment blurb has already been posted. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 14:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Should the discussion be closed soon as it may lead to unconstructive arguments? Just curious. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not at all. Consensus may swing the other way and people have a right to express their opinions &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Gotcha I just wanted to know the ropes here when it comes to closing discussions because I've seen some discussions close the moment something's posted. Good to know! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 14:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's actually never happened. Discussions have only been closed once people stop being useful and start to focus on defeating people they don't like.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:33, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Post-posting comment – A familiar name, but Giscard seems not widely remembered for his policies. At 2,800 words, his article is modest – and since he died at 94, albeit of Covid, the death isn't surprising. If our main reason for the blurb was to counter a perceived U.S. bias, that's not valid. But I'm NOT for pulling it; we've taken the plunge. – Sca (talk) 15:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will note that the only time anyone mentioned a U.S. bias, it was you, right now. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 15:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Not correct, the first mention of bias was me at 13:00 UTC today. But I think the right outcome has emerged- an important head of state should have a blurb. <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 15:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed: "ITNC has a bias towards American officeholders." Anyway, some users have alleged such here in the past. – Sca (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Strong post-posting blurb support Household name in Europe. We posted some literalwho American judge who was like a 100-years old when she died, and people are opposing the blurb about the last president of France under whom the country actually meant something on the world stage? Cringe. Also, proposing an alt-blurb that mentions Covid-19. CoronaOneLove (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb regardless of being a household name or not, I think blurb posting for any former leader of the G7/8/20 countries is a no-brainer (as long as the rest of the ITN requirements are met). --M asem (t) 17:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Zafarullah Khan Jamali

 * Comment Just needs a couple of citations in the first two sentences of "Prime Minister of Pakistan" section JW 1961   Talk  21:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose poor quality PROSELINE and inadequate sourcing. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support definitely worse RDs out there (although we may need to revisit RDs). Albertaont (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose Two unsourced statements, and could use a few more than 26 sources. Gex4pls (talk) 01:27, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Lead needs reworking and some unreferenced statements here and there in the article. Gotitbro (talk) 02:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support blurb - marked it ready as the article is now fully referenced. At least a photo must be posted along with the RD, if not a blurb. Otherwise it will cement the perception of biasness here with the French guy getting a blurb. Depressed Desi (talk) 13:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * this needs attention. Depressed Desi (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Posted to RD - looks like referencing issues were sorted. There isn't a consensus for blurbing right now, but people can continue discussing that if they wish. Not sure he's really comparable to Giscard, as he was only in office for 1.5 years. Also we wouldn't put a pic if he remains only at RD. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:21, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Walter E. Williams

 * Support good article, would encourage to take it to WP:GAN after expanding the lead a little.  This is good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support looks good to go JW 1961   Talk  21:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Article looks very good, nice find, and previous work by editors. Gotitbro (talk) 02:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) RD: Pat Patterson

 * Oppose multiple unreferenced paragraphs. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Seeing a lot of unreferenced paras in there. Gotitbro (talk) 03:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Full of unreferenced and citation needed tagged sentences.  The C of E God Save the Queen!  ( talk ) 21:06, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for article quality, but want to remind people that being a gay wrestler is like maybe 10% of his transformative effect on the WWF (and thereby the whole damn industry). If it was a good article, I'd blurb it for sure. If I booked this promotion, I mean. InedibleHulk (talk) 01:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Mohamed Abarhoun

 * Weak oppose it's still marked as a stub and excluding the lead we've got fewer than 1500 characters. Not convinced this is all there is to say about a player who admittedly died young but still managed more than 200 professional appearances.  The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair point, I'll see if I can find something more on his career. It'll probably be tomorrow - Dumelow (talk) 22:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi The Rambling Man, I've fleshed out the club career section a bit more now - Dumelow (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good work. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 08:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Looks okay now but can still be expanded. Gotitbro (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Still ready almost 13 hours later and not been posted. Any admins out there? <b style="color:#0033ab">Joseph</b><b style="color:#000000">2302</b> (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:24, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(Banner updated) BNT162b2

 * Not being pointy/obtuse here, I just think we need to say it: why is first in the West worth making note of? 75.188.224.208 (talk) 12:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose it’s moreso the level of testing for BNT162b2 than the UK being in the West: No country until Wednesday had authorized a fully tested coronavirus vaccine; Russia and China approved vaccines without waiting for large-scale efficacy tests (NYT). It's also the first time that an mRNA vaccine has been approved. — MarkH21talk 13:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 3 in that case. 75.188.224.208 (talk) 13:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support: Its an important step towards beating Covid-19, regardless if its the first western country to approve of a vaccine. Any move forward is a good move forward. Fusioncore21 (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Update Banner Is this not already covered by the banner? Is there some reason that we should focus on this vaccine over ones from Russia (widely available, released earlier), China (available in large numbers, released earlier), or even more niche vaccines that have been used previously?130.233.213.199 (talk) 13:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In light of comments below, I think we should make COVID-19 vaccine a link in the banner. It's already there in many of the links, but we might as well put it directly.130.233.213.199 (talk) 05:49, 3 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose Well first off, its not wide-spread approval, its Emergency Use Authorization. Second off, other countries like United Arab Emirates and Bahrain have also approved a COVID-19 vaccine and the ruler of Dubai himself already got the injection. Not exactly sure why this becomes notable, unless you wish to say "The United Kingdom approves BNT162b2 for widespread use, becoming the first G7 country to approve a COVID-19 vaccine. Albertaont (talk) 14:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * UAE ran Phase III trials with 31,000 volunteers, and Bahrain with 7,000 volunteers. (Reuters) (CNBC).Albertaont (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop directly changing the nomination.Emergency Use Authorization is an article about an FDA authority, not the authorisation in the UK.ALT3 is directly from the NYT: No country until Wednesday had authorized a fully tested coronavirus vaccine, while the Bahrain/UAE approval is for the aformentioned Chinese vaccine that was approved without waiting for large-scale efficacy tests.This is also notable for being the first approved mRNA vaccine of any kind (ALT4), as mentioned in the NYT, BBC, and WSJ articles. — MarkH21talk 14:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The very same NYT article said approval in UK is for emergency use. It says it in the very first sentence. Albertaont (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look at the article Emergency Use Authorization, it is strictly about the FDA in the United States. That article should not be linked here. — MarkH21talk 14:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose for two reasons. Firstly, this should already be covered with the banner and, if not, the update should be done there. Secondly, we didn't post the approval of Gam-COVID-Vac in Russia, so this is not the first country in the world to approve a COVID-19 vaccine (And before coming to contest this view, please provide scientific evidence that this vaccine is better and more efficient). I also don't think that the clarifications 'first Western country' and 'after large-scale testing' in the proposed blurbs make a lot of sense (yet the fact it's the first mRNA vaccine is noteworthy). Let's wait until the World Health Organisation approves its production and distribution, and then discuss posting it as the first widely approved vaccine. Nonetheless, this nomination is a timely warning that the banner should be updated with a link to COVID-19 vaccine.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 14:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A "strong oppose" carries no more weight than an "oppose." – Sca (talk)
 * I know. But when you see that people continue to nominate COVID-related items for a blurb while the banner is still on the top and, more importantly, it can benefit from the nomination, you need to react somehow and that's a good sign to use an intensifier.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We should rely on the sagacity of our comments to persuade our colleagues. "Strong" seems to imply an emotional commitment more than a reasoned argument, IMO. – Sca (talk) 15:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: the comment about it being the first in the West is a bit of a red herring, the point is it's the first that has completed clinical trials and been demonstrated to be effective. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It has not "completed trials", because otherwise it wouldn't have been given emergency authorization. Volunteers continue to be monitored, and its not like those in the placebo group are now authorized to take the full vaccine as the study has closed. Albertaont (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment – In widespread RS coverage, the vaccine is generally referred to as "the vaccine from American drugmaker Pfizer and Germany’s BioNTech (AP) or simply "the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine (Guardian). For Wikipedia's audience, there's no point in calling it "the BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine." Why force readers to follow a linked jargony acronym only to read in the first sentence that it's a vaccine "developed by BioNTech and Pfizer" – ?? This is pure techie obfuscation – and it doesn't read well either. – Sca (talk) 15:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * A rename or pipe to a more common / descriptive name would be pretty reasonable! Something like BNT162b2 -> the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine or a vaccine from Pfizer/BioNTech? — MarkH21talk 20:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support and/or Update banner As Kiril Simeonovski notes, there is no reason why we shouldn't have a link to COVID-19 vaccine in the banner since that is the main focus of news coverage at this stage. I'm not opposed to posting this story in lieu of that, however. Teemu08 (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to the COVID-19 vaccine link, just to the BNT162b2 one – which BTW makes a very clumsy title for an article. – Sca (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also thought that the article title is clumsy and not intuitive, but it turns out that is the convention per WP:NCMED: The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name).  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 20:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:IAR – Our loyalty should be to the readers, not to to the multifarious Rule Book. – Sca (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Update banner seems reasonable. Its one of the most popular pages on wiki right now, outside of temporary news. Albertaont (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - Big news no matter how you look at it. It's a vaccine for one of the worst pandemics in human history, released in an extremely protracted time period.--WaltCip- (talk)  17:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose I want to oppose based on the fact that no matter how we phrase the blurb it is necessarily going to sound like it's the UK making an important step, rather than being the quickest to rush emergency authorization of an international vaccine. Even without that fact, we can't have a blurb that sounds celebratory of a certain country/it's government. If we could update banner to highlight the vaccine, that would be suitable. I might bring it up at the portal whether to create a new box on the emergency use, too. Great news for a small part of the British population, though! Kingsif (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Update Banner and if not Oppose per Kingsif Thanks, SixulaTalk 22:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Update Banner Covid news is supposed to be covered by banner, unless it's a major, major development. Gex4pls (talk) 01:29, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Alt 1. Well written article. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:35, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose We have a banner for a reason. And if we are going top be blurbing about COVID (which has been avoided like the disease itself on here) make it generic (about vaccines, other advancements etc.) not about news specific to a country. Gotitbro (talk) 03:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Update banner – told you so. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:03, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ with link to COVID-19 vaccine &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:47, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Hugh Keays-Byrne

 * Support. Clean and well referenced article, somewhere between a Start-class and a C-class biography, though Rater.js suggests B. Good to go to the homepage. Ktin (talk) 00:03, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:30, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: George Ross Anderson Jr.

 * Oppose Article is fine except for a single cn tag in there. Please fix it. Gotitbro (talk) 02:11, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now. Gotitbro (talk) 03:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support I have fixed the CN tag. Hanif Al Husaini (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Maria Itkina

 * Support Looks okay to me. Gotitbro (talk) 12:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Article is start class or better. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Seems fine for RD JW 1961   Talk  21:21, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support good to go. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:48, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * —Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(Posted) RD: Brian Kerr, Baron Kerr of Tonaghmore

 * Support Agree, its a short but well sourced piece that covers all his his roles JW 1961   Talk  22:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Good enough.-- SirEdimon Dimmi!!! 01:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Looks okay to me. Gotitbro (talk) 02:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't like "Selected cases" and I don't like one of them not being linked/referenced. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 21:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Good point, there was no criteria for selection. I've removed the section and added those not mentioned in the text to "see also" - Dumelow (talk) 23:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Posted Stephen 00:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Arecibo observatory

 * Comment didn't we already post the closure of this? The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!&#33;!&#33;) 17:04, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose it was closed because of the same issues that caused the collapse, and there was no reason to believe it would be saved. Ergo, the collapse is not sufficiently distinct from the closure decision to be posted as a separate item.  GreatCaesarsGhost   17:29, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that this was posted before? In any event, this is analogous to a death.  <b style="color:#060">7&amp;6=thirteen</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b>) 17:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Closure was on ITN from 20 Nov to 25 Nov. Just answering the question, no opinion on adding a new blurb. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose We already posted this, so recently that I think it was the last blurb to roll off the main page. -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose (Yes we posted the decommissioning already). They knew that if this wasn't decommissioned in a controlled manner soon, it was going to collapse, the question of how disasterous the collapse. While this has destroys the dish and receiver, ending the telescope's "life", the damage from it was not as bad as they had feared (no injuries, some structural damage to remaining buildings), so while a sad event, I think most were already prepared back on Nov 19 when the decommissioning was announced. --M asem (t) 17:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: we posted that it was being decommissioned already. It was being decommissioned because it was old and on the verge of collapse. Now it collapsed. Not really unexpected or newsworthy.  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 19:01, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Per previous. Suggest snow. – Sca (talk) 19:33, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Chang'e 5 Landing

 * Oppose I think we want to affirm it returns to Earth, which should be in two weeks, IIRC. That would mark the successful mission. (It hasn't made the return so its not really a full sample-return mission yet). --M asem (t) 17:53, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Masem. The spacecraft has not yet reached its destination, which is Earth.  GreatCaesarsGhost   18:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's quite frankly ridiculous. If you go on holiday to X. Your holiday distination is X, not your home despite knowing you would be returning with souvenirs. -- KTC (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it matches the ITNR, but the fact that its return would also be an ITNR means we'd probably want to wait for the latter since it will be very very soon. If this was a return-sample mission to Mars where the return would take several months, that would be different as we'd not have to worry about piggybacking stories on the same thing. --M asem (t) 18:08, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Hey, I tried to reduce the number of space exploration (wouldn't have affected this one) on ITNR, those that supported on here didn't comment, a number of those that commented objected to it there. They suggested that if people bothered to update the articles, it should be posted. So here we are, an article that has sufficient details, meets ITNR, so post it. -- KTC (talk) 18:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not listed as ITNR on return to earth, only on reaching the moon. There is no ITNR for returning to earth in the criteria. Albertaont (talk) 20:00, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't be so obtuse. A destination is the end of a journey. I go on a journey to my holiday destination, at which point the journey is over. The trip home is a separate journey. Has Chang'e reached the end of its journey? No.  GreatCaesarsGhost   19:45, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I can equally argue that Chang'e has reached the end of it's "first" journey but that's not what's important. What's important is whether this meets the ITNR criteria, and it does, when applying the criteria as it was intended. Also: the point of the mission is to go to the moon AND come back, NOT only coming back. Had Chang' e not landed on the moon, this mission would have been useless. 74.101.118.65 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct - you could argue either way; my position is not "ridiculous" as another editor rudely opined. You say the distinction is unimportant because this is ITNR, but the distinction defines if it is ITNR. Given that the key objective of the mission is to return specimens, the return to Earth would seem to be plainly more significant than the craft reaching the moon.  GreatCaesarsGhost   14:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)


 * NPC, boys. – Sca (talk)


 * Support - it's a spacecraft, it has arrived at a destination in lunar orbit and beyond, don't quickly see a problem with the article itself. -- KTC (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per KTC. Mjroots (talk) 18:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per KTC. It's a moon mission, not an Earth mission. 331dot (talk) 18:40, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - notable space mission, regardless if it gets back to Earth or not.--CyclonicallyDeranged (talk) 19:09, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This is an unmanned space probe. Success is defined by whether or not it is able to return samples to Earth. If it doesn't make it back to Earth, it's a failed mission and would get posted on ITN either way under ITN/R rules.--WaltCip- (talk)  19:24, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Success or failure of the mission is not part of the criteria of WP:ITN/R for spacecraft, if there was an intent to use it as a criteria, then it would be there already. The only mention of failure in the criteria is "launch failure" which this is clearly not. The criteria of arrival of spacecraft (to lunar orbit and beyond) is very clearly stated. WP:ITN/R does not say a return to earth would qualify, only that it reaches lunar orbit or beyond. Albertaont (talk) 19:54, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I would actually go so far as to say that none of the existing ITN/R criteria cleanly cover this particular mission, particularly the "lunar orbit and beyond" criteria, mostly because a mission of this particular kind hasn't been done since the 1970s (predating Wikipedia, let alone ITN/R). The mission's goal is sample return and that should be when a posting is made.--WaltCip- (talk)  20:19, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We have had a few comet missions which are also in sample return category, how were they treated? Might provide precedent. Albertaont (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a lunar crasher. The spacecraft made a soft landing which means the objective is to return with physical samples. WaltCip- (talk)  03:31, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support ITNR and article quality is good. 74.101.118.65 (talk) 21:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support An ITNR that a an aacceptable article JW 1961   Talk  22:43, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Same as the last nom for this. Are we going to post when it reaches (or fails to reach) Earth, yes?, then we needn't post the same thing multiple times. It might be ITNR but we can better use our own judgement here. On a side note is mentioning Luna in the blurb necessary/relevant? Gotitbro (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Finally, something worth putting up This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Oppose While I'm all for posting science milestones, this specific mission is not complete yet, and I say we wait until the sample returns to earth. Gex4pls (talk) 04:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait. It returns in two weeks. When we post multiple blurbs about a single space mission, they are typically months or even years apart. --Tone 08:49, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This exactly, posting multiple blurbs about the same thing in such close time-frames doesn't seem right. Gotitbro (talk) 13:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't count your chickens before they hatch. In any case, we posted OSIRIS-REx THREE times already and it doesn't even return until 2023. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:16, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Because the events are months/years apart. The only issue here is that if we post now, then by the usual ITN posting timing, a few days after this falls out from other stories being posted, the rocket will have returned to Earth and mark the successful end of mission and we'd want to post again. We can wait the couple weeks. If the return was a month out, I won't be as worried about the double post. --M asem (t) 14:38, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , the oldest item now is from Nov. 23 (9 days ago). This is the slow season. It is likely that it won't roll off at all and we can simply update it. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 15:03, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * But what if it does roll off? Then people would want to readd it, and then we get to a situation like the Arecibo Observatory (where a second event that was known to be coming in a few weeks wasn't posted because it was expected). It is simply better to wait for the return to Earth at this point to minimize problems. --M asem (t) 15:08, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Waiting seems sensible, as returning to Earth is part of the mission.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:39, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support – This is ITNR and a major achievement. --- C &amp; C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 14:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait for sample return to Earth, which is only a fortnight away. That's the final destination of the mission - getting to the Moon is a major step along the way, but not the actual goal. I agree with Masem that we could have posted those stages separately if they were months or years apart, but it makes little sense when they're only a few days. See also the discussion a few days ago on the launch, where we agreed to wait for sample return. <b style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: maroon;">Modest Genius</b> talk 15:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait – Per Modest, P-K3, et al. – Sca (talk) 15:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wait - it seems preferable to report on it completing its successful mission. Obviously if something goes wrong before it returns to Earth, we would report that as well. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * To add, it has appeared to lifted off safely from the moon, so very extraordinary chance of not being able to complete the main mission by the 15th-16th. --M asem (t) 14:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support now it's only the 3rd successful lander since the 70s. The other two were also Chinese, but there have been more successful landings on Mars in the last decade alone.  It's weird to see this bias on ITN. 2601:602:9200:1310:FC9F:418A:1BFE:3AE0 (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

(Closed) Mahara prison riot

 * Comment I have done a full article CE. Coverage is global and the article is well composed and referenced. The lede is too long, and the parts dealing with the riot should be broken off into their own section. It is odd to find an article with only sections named Background and Aftermath. Perhaps Riot and fire is needed in between. A few details don't make sense to me; was the "fire from the Mahara fire" a secondary fire, and is "succumbed" used to mean "died" (the 8 prisoners) or "subdued" (in the whole prison population)? Will support once these are done.130.233.213.199 (talk) 07:50, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose For now, too short ATM. Also this seems to be connected with COVID, which is being avoided for blurbs unless especially notable (the blurb should also reflect the COVID relation which is the reason for its coverage in news). Gotitbro (talk) 10:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Not widely covered in media, lede is much longer than body, among other general quality concerns with the article. Albertaont (talk) 02:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose Not widely covered, article is not great This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose Article is stubby, and event seems a bit too local for ITN (though if death toll rises past say, 30, I'd support) Gex4pls (talk) 04:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment While I agree that the article quality needs to improve, what's the objection to coverage? CNN (sourced from Reuters), Guardian (apparently independently sourced), and Al Jazeera (sourced from AFP). That's at least 5 sources representing 3 languages and 3 continents, just taking the links in the nom.130.233.213.199 (talk) 06:14, 2 December 2020 (UTC)