Talk:Guatemalan president and first lady apply for divorce

Revision 1202845 of this article has been reviewed by Blood Red Sandman (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 11:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC).Reply Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: I'm really pushing it by publishing this article. The last source was four days ago, outside the final 2-3 day limit. I should probably fail; English-lang readers (i.e. our audience) are less likely to have heard and that is why I'm going to slip this one out anyway. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

This article is stale. Does Wikinews have any real rules? NASCAR driver Juan Montoya earns 2011 Auto Club 400 pole position was removed as stale because it was not review on the date the sources were within the time frame. The most recent source for this article on the Guatemalan president is 5 days out of date (March 23). Mattisse (talk) 13:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

The author tagged that as stale, not an independent reviewer. — μ 13:06, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

• 27 minus 23 is four. It was not stale by 48 hours, as you suggest. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:08, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Ok, my math is wrong. But stale is stale. And you fixed up and edited the article before you passed it. I am disappointed in Wikinews. Reviewer standards vary widely. Also NASCAR driver Juan Montoya earns 2011 Auto Club 400 pole position was tagged as "stale" by the author because he was playing by the rules. The article did not get reviewed in time, even though it was completed and awaiting review within the time limit. No one played by the rules on this article that you passed. Why so much effort to pass a stale article? It could have been rewritten with current sources. Mattisse (talk) 13:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

"2-3 days" is purposely very vague. I make no apologies for choosing on rare occasion to go a some hours beyond, and I wouldn't be surprised by other reviewers choosing lkewise. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Not "some hours beyond" but over a day beyond. Last source dated March 23; article published March 27. Mattisse (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Article published 12:00. 24 minus 12 is 12 hours. Exactly half a day, not a day. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Last source dated March 23; article published March 27. "The last source was four days ago, outside the final 2-3 day limit. I should probably fail;", you say. This topic is all over the current news, CNN for one. Recent sources could have been used. Mattisse (talk) 13:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

wikt:probably Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:41, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why not do the right thing and use current sources? Mattisse (talk) 13:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why not do so yourself? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 13:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Because I would have to rewrite the article for the editor who claims authorship. Writing an article is a lot of work and the subject is not that interesting. Mattisse (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Did anyone claim ownership? If you mean the way I put it on my userpage I (or anyone else) can revert it any time. Kayau (talk · contribs) 13:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Loca... loca... te volviste loca... [...] Diego Grez ^{return fire} 13:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

┌─────────────────────────────┘
A couple of notes about staleness in general (and presumably I'll regret having said anything at all :-).

• Shelf life does vary from story to story; sometimes reviewers may be inclined to different calls on a given case, just as reviewers sometimes differ on newsworthiness. Some stories spoil after only two days. Publishing at "four" is rare, but I've noticed it done at least once before. It certainly shouldn't be done without commenting on why, which BRS did here.
• The reference for 2–3 days isn't actually supposed to be the dates on the sources, but when new information came to light. So newer sources with the same information wouldn't change anything except to make the issue less obvious. Just saying.

--Pi zero (talk) 14:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

"Comments on the divorce have ranged from 'unthinkable' to 'a fraud', as which Patriotic Party candidate Otto Perez described the incident."

Perhaps the sentence could be clarified, as it doesn't make sense to me? Thanks, Mattisse (talk) 19:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

I've suggested alternative wording. I too had trouble with it. --Pi zero (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Edit has been sighted. Much better, thanks. Tempodivalse [talk] 19:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

"have done so so that Torres can apply for presidency." Using "so" twice in a row may be what the author meant, but could it be worded more elegantly? Mattisse (talk) 21:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

"The Constitutional Court in Guatemala, the highest legal authority that determines the legitimacy of a presidential candidate, is to be taken over by new members in April." Is it true that a court is "taken over" in Guatemala? Or do new members fill the seats? Or what? Mattisse (talk) 21:19, 28 March 2011 (UTC)Reply