Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates

Welcome to In the news. Please read the guidelines. Admin instructions are here.

In the news toolbox
Error reports Nominations History (Posts · Nominations) Discussion General criteria Death criteria Recurring items Admin guide Image protection Current events portal
v t e

This page provides a place to discuss new items for inclusion on In the news (ITN), a protected template on the Main Page (see past items in the ITN archives). Do not report errors in ITN items that are already on the Main Page here— discuss those at the relevant section of WP:ERRORS.

This candidates page is integrated with the daily pages of Portal:Current events. A light green header appears under each daily section – it includes transcluded Portal:Current events items for that day. You can discuss ITN candidates under the header.

Luís Montenegro In the Portuguese legislative election, the Democratic Alliance (leader Luís Montenegro pictured) wins the most seats in parliament. Austria, represented by JJ with the song "Wasted Love", wins the Eurovision Song Contest. Former president of Uruguay José Mujica dies at the age of 89. The Socialist Party led by current prime minister Edi Rama wins an outright majority in the Albanian parliamentary election. Ongoing: Gaza war M23 campaign Russian invasion of Ukraine timeline Sudanese civil war timeline Recent deaths: Richard Garwin Tommy Vigorito Eddie Marzuki Nalapraya Alla Osipenko Azmun Jaafar Bob Cowper Nominate an article view — page history — related changes — edit

Archives of posted stories: Wikipedia:In the news/Posted/Archives

This page contains a section for each day and a sub-section for each nomination. To see the size and title of each section, please expand the following section size summary.

Section sizes

Nominator's comments: Needs some work Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Indian Nuclear scientist Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American convicted criminal executed by lethal injection. Article looks good. Natg 19 (talk) 18:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Needs sourcing for titles and record, but prose looks good. Natg 19 (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone know where the boxing record can be sourced to? Natg 19 (talk) 18:42, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Indian astrophysicist and writer. 240F:7A:6253:1:3C6C:4FC:46F0:D42F (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I wish the article made it clearer that his ideas have not been accepted by other cosmologists. Still, it has been updated and the quality does meet our minimum requirements for posting in RD. Modest Genius ^talk 12:58, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  While attempting to clarify the research parts of the article, I realised that there are a bunch of unreferenced statements, and most of the listed books need at least an ISBN. I've added several cn tags that will need to be addressed before posting this. Modest Genius ^talk 13:46, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American restaurateur and UCLA basketball player. Died on May 8 but announced on May 19. —Bagumba (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Good depth; referenced. Spencer^T•C 06:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Good enough to post on the main page as a DYK hook last year. Bremps... 09:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: World's top competition in club volleyball. Not very widely covered in the anglophone world. Abcmaxx (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know much about professional volleyball, butNot very widely covered in the anglophone world. seems to be a good reason NOT to post. Natg 19 (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We are a global Wikipedia and the reason there aren't that many sources are for the same reasons there are not that many Italian sources covering AFL finals or Polish sources covering the Rugby Super League. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Per WP:ITNR, we do post the top international competition in volleyball. I'm not seeing a good reason to post the European club tournament as well, especially if it gets little media coverage. Regardless, the article is in nothing like a postable condition - it's purely tables, with no prose at all. Please don't nominate items until after the article has been updated and brought to something approaching postable standard. Currently there's nothing for us to assess, whatever we might think about the significance. Modest Genius ^talk 17:20, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is the top international competition in the sport. The only other top event, aside from the Olympics, is the World Cup but that's like comparing the FIFA World Cup and the UEFA Champions League. Abcmaxx (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, these are club sides, not national sides. The top international tournament in volleyball is the FIVB World Championship (men and women). Modest Genius ^talk 11:38, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Modest Genius: This an international competition though, and a top one at that. Where do you think all those international players ply their day-to-day trade? If anything, club sides tend to be better than national sides as you can in theory have any player you want, but it's still comparing apples and oranges. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That's not what international sport means. This is a European club competition. Regardless, I don't see what your objection to my terminology has to do with whether we post this event or not. Modest Genius ^talk 12:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This is exactly what international sport means, Europe isn't a nation. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• OpposeNot very widely covered in the anglophone world and lack of prose, just table after table. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The quality issue should be addressed. Lack of anglophone sources, though, is a skill issue on our part, not a notability problem for the subject. This isn't the Wikipedia of Anglophones, and we should resist pressure for it to become so. GenevieveDEon (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the English-language Wikipedia, so our audience is comprised of people who can at least read the English language. That's not the same thing as the Anglosphere, but lack of coverage in English-language sources does suggest that this event isn't significant to our readers. Modest Genius ^talk 11:41, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would say it just means WP:BIAS. Volleyball is much more widely played and popular than gaelic football or lacrosse for example. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like that as a reason. Lots of things may not be common in the Anglophone media but are still important. I've no comment on volleyball fwiw. Secretlondon (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• SupportNot very widely covered in the anglophone world isn't a major reason for not posting this blurb. Anyways, it's still major international volleyball competition, and seems still worthly to be posted, regardless whether there's lack of source from English-speaking world or is the competition unknown from English-speaking people. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No prose for the season summary. Moraljaya67 (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• I hate to be that guy, but the Wikipedia article pageviews for this tournament are pathetic. There are other volleyball tournaments that had more views (though those won't be posted anyway either). Maybe Europe is not the "home continent" of volleyball? Howard the Duck (talk) 20:24, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 2025 PGA Championship (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In golf, Scottie Scheffler (pictured) wins the PGA Championship. (Post)
News source(s): CBS News
Credits:

• Nominated by Moraljaya67 (talk · give credit)

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

 Moraljaya67 (talk) 01:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: "Second round" section has no sources, "final round" section has no prose. Left guide (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready. As is unfortunately typical with golf nominations, the article is a mess. The 'criteria' section is an incomprehensible set of bullet points (largely unreferenced), the final round has no prose at all, the second round is unreferenced, the 'venue' section has only one source (for a statement about a completely different event in 2016!) etc. The article needs substantial improvement to bring it up to a postable standard. Modest Genius ^talk 14:29, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - we rarely seem to post golf tournaments these days, for the reasons given above. The articles are always a mess quality-wise, and this one is no exception. The field needs to be reduced or split into a separate article (see 2024 Open Championship field for an example) and more prose added for the rounds.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:15, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The field/qualifying criteria section is one of the most useful things about these articles. Wikipedia usually is the best resource for neatly listing the field and grouping each player into a qualifying category. For someone following the tournament and wondering "how did this guy get into the tournament", it generally displays the information better than the references supporting the material do. Spinning the section off into a separate article just makes readers have to tap through into another article.

The main problem with these articles is that they are generally copy-pastes from a previous year's article so some of the content is supported by references that are out-of-date, and nobody cares enough to write prose summaries of the rounds. NICHOLAS NEEDLEHAM (talk) 22:31, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The qualification criteria may be of interest to experts on golf, but not a general audience. I don't object to that information being somewhere on Wikipedia if properly explained and presented, but at present it's a massive and unintelligible data dump that unbalances the article. Modest Genius ^talk 11:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 2025 Portuguese legislative election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ In Portugal, the Democratic Alliance, led by the Prime Minister Luís Montenegro (pictured) wins the most seats in parliament. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Portuguese legislative election, the Democratic Alliance (leader Luís Montenegro pictured) wins the most seats in parliament.
News source(s): BBC News, France 24, the Guardian
Credits:

• Nominated by Haers6120 (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: legislative election in Portugal. Haers6120 (talk) 20:23, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support but wait We need to clarify the official result first whether the ruling coalition wins "majority" 116 seats or just "wins most seats" that falls short of majority. Otherwise, this article is very good to be posted as WP:ITNR. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it was no a majority. History6042😊 (Contact me) 01:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can be posted with a plurality or most seats caveat. In some cases, when the coalition is formed and sworn in that is also posted.Sportsnut24 (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I'm pleased to see that the article is in good shape, all the results tables have been filled out, and there are three paragraphs of referenced prose describing the outcome. While it could do with a light copyedit, the quality is fine to post. I've added an altblurb that I think is clearer and puts the bold link at the start. Modest Genius ^talk 11:57, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support ITNR Scuba 13:46, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support ArionStar (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted – Schwede66 08:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: 2025 Romanian presidential election (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Independent candidate and Mayor of Bucharest, Nicușor Dan, defeats Alliance for the Union of Romanians candidate, George Simion, in the 2025 Romanian presidential election. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ In the Romanian presidential election, Nicușor Dan (pictured) is elected as President of Romania.
Alternative blurb II: ​ Nicușor Dan (pictured) is elected as President of Romania.
News source(s): France24, BBC News, the Guardian
Credits:

• Nominated by History6042 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Bukovinian..Mapper (talk · give credit)

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

Nominator's comments: This is ITNR and the result seem inevitable per current results, Dan is leading by 9%. I will work on updating the article. History6042😊 (Contact me) 20:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Need to be verified by more sources and the article slightly polished, but otherwise should be posted given that it is ITNR. Gust Justice (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support altblurb See the official result at its Wikipedia page, the vote count just much closer to 100% (99.98%). So, it appears very good timing to post this blurb. 103.111.102.118 (talk) 23:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Is mathematically impossible for the result to change at this point. This post was made by orbitalbuzzsaw gang (talk) 06:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle, although the Results section and lede need proper updating. Nsk92 (talk) 08:48, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Added altblurb 2 for brevity and to remove redundancies. Left guide (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alblurb 2 for consistency with other ITNR posted blurbs. Additionally, the vote count is 100%, so it's perfect time for posted now. 2404:8000:1037:587:456F:150F:468D:9493 (talk) 10:28, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support ITNR Scuba 13:45, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt2 ArionStar (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Not ready. There's no prose whatsoever in the 'results' section, and 2025_Romanian_presidential_election#Second_round_3 is insufficient as a description of the outcome. Once that's fixed, alt1 is the best proposed blurb. Modest Genius ^talk 14:23, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Not ready per Modest Genius. In addition to the issue with no prose for results or aftermath, the page is also bloated with excessive maps and tables etc. Per WP:NOTSTATS we don't need vast tables for endorsements and all that stuff.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it's great that the article is locked to common editors while the registered editors wait for edits to be done before posting this. 194.102.58.6 (talk) 12:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Nothing seems to happen with this now. The alt blurb seems alright, the information is in the article, so what's the hold-up? FluturelA (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  It hasn't been posted because no-one has fixed the problems with the article. There is still no referenced prose describing the (second-round) results and the outcomes of the election. Modest Genius ^talk 16:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Modest Genius I just did it. Is that enough or is there need for more? FluturelA (talk) 21:10, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  This update was done, and if you'd look at the section for the first round aftermath, it's still quite short. There should be something that could've been said, aside from the inevitable international reactions soup.

  This seems to be the most anticipated election of the past few days and it'll be a pity if this won't be posted. Howard the Duck (talk) 22:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Could be expanded a bit, a few citations needed Mooonswimmer 11:28, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Priest and independence figure from Timor-Leste. Article appears to be in quite good shape. Curbon7 (talk) 11:14, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - looks good to go.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:18, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Article: Cuauhtémoc Brooklyn Bridge collision (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ The Mexican Navy's training ship ARM Cuauhtémoc collides with the Brooklyn Bridge, New York (collision pictured), killing two people and injuring twenty-five others. (Post)
News source(s): Associated Press
Credits:

• Nominated by Mjroots (talk · give credit)
• Created by Hectordej7544 (talk · give credit)
• Updated by MatthewPlayThrough (talk · give credit) and Dmoore5556 (talk · give credit)

 Mjroots (talk) 06:18, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Even The New York Times website has multiple stories above this one. No real short term or long term effects are expected either. All lanes are already open.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While a few lives were lost, it was a minor ship accident (no damage to the bridge itself), so not really an ITN bit. Masem (t) 14:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose Not comparable to the Francis Scott Key Bridge collapse. The Brooklyn Bridge is still standing and fully operational. This wouldn't be making headlines if it wasn't such a grandiose ship that did the colliding, and the worst has passed on this. The Cuauhtemoc still sails, it's a shame it had to be damaged. Departure– (talk) 16:04, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose No structural damage. ArionStar (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. This is an unusual event but it's effectively a traffic accident that killed several people. That's tragic but doesn't seem likely to have any wider or long-term implications. The bridge appears to have received very little damage; road and river traffic has resumed. I doubt this event would be getting so much press attention if it hadn't been filmed by multiple witnesses. If the article can be fleshed out it would make a good DYK item. Modest Genius ^talk 17:12, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. We are talking about an international disaster with dramatic footage. Long term the ship has to go somewhere, what the Mexican Navy decides to do will also be in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  How "dramatic" is the footage to justify posting this on its face? Departure– (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Far from being an "international disaster". Masem (t) 21:48, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning oppose. Flashy, big news, but the most noteworthy impact is the damage to the ship itself, which does not rise to the level of the main page. Deaths, while tragic, where minimal, as was damage to the bridge. BD2412 T 21:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article: Eurovision Song Contest 2025 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Singer JJ (pictured), representing Austria with the song "Wasted Love", wins the Eurovision Song Contest 2025. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ Austria, represented by JJ (pictured) with the song "Wasted Love", wins the Eurovision Song Contest.
News source(s): [3]
Credits:

• Nominated by BabbaQ (talk · give credit)

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

 BabbaQ (talk) 23:19, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Previous years Eurovision winners were also posted, so I see no reason this shouldn't. TheHiddenCity (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support article updated and well-referenced; notability comments not needed for ITN/R. Happily888 (talk) 01:10, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Not seeing any issues with the event article, updated in a timely manner as has been the case for multiple years now. Masem (t) 01:30, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Article is well-sourced and of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 02:58, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Well-sourced and updated with previous Eurovision winners also being posted. Cheers! Nascar9919 (he/him • t • c) 02:59, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted Stephen 03:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Tornado outbreak sequence of May 15–16, 2025 (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ A massive tornado outbreak (residential damage pictured) occurs from the dates of May 15th-May 16th, killing over 31 people in the process. (Post)
Alternative blurb: ​ A massive tornado outbreak (residential damage pictured) hits the Ohio River Valley and the East Coast, with 31 people left dead.
Alternative blurb II: ​ 31 people are confirmed dead after a huge tornado outbreak (residential damage pictured) had hit the Eastern United States.
Alternative blurb III: ​ A tornado outbreak (residential damage pictured) kills at least 31 people in the Eastern United States, including 24 in Southeast Kentucky and five in St. Louis.
Alternative blurb IV: ​ A tornado outbreak (residential damage pictured) kills at least 31 people in the Midwestern and Southeastern United States.
News source(s): NPR, (CNN)
Credits:

• Nominated by 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:44A4:D241:CB72:1ED3 (talk · give credit)
• Created by Departure– (talk · give credit)
• Updated by EF5 (talk · give credit)

 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:44A4:D241:CB72:1ED3 (talk) 17:45, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Wait for the fatality count to inevitably rise. Massive, EF4+ tornado hit London, KY, deadliest since 2021. — ^EF⁵ 17:46, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I thought the highest rating of this storm was EF2? 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:44A4:D241:CB72:1ED3 (talk) 17:47, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  2606:9400:98A0:92A0:44A4:D241:CB72:1ED3, that is true, but the London tornado was 100% of at least EF3 intensity. — ^EF⁵ 17:49, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @EF5 We should really evaluate the rating system for tornadoes and stuff 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:44A4:D241:CB72:1ED3 (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure what you mean. — ^EF⁵ 17:51, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  based on the deaths from the Somerset-London tornado, that kind of killing is only seen in EF4 or EF5s and same with the damage, the damage looks as bad as the Smithville tornado's damage 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:44A4:D241:CB72:1ED3 (talk) 17:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Tons of damage and a lot of fatalities. Bloxzge 025 (talk) 18:32, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support alt blurb 3 - Definitely worthy of ITN, has the potential to be worse than the 2021 Western Kentucky tornado, and definitely the worst since then. Casualty rate expect to rise as well.  Kentuckian |💬   19:10, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also good to note that Eastern Kentucky rarely gets these type of tornadoes (last I can recall being March 2012) so definitely a rare occurrence. ^EF⁵ 19:12, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the mountainous terrain makes it hard for tornadoes to spawn (correct me if I am wrong). There are occasionally tornadoes, but they don't usually cause much damage, so I was extremely surprised when I heard about this one. Thank you for pointing that out.  Kentuckian |💬   19:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems weird to say "Eastern US" because most tornadoes were in the Midwest and South Yobatna (talk) 20:13, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

what i mean by eastern us is the half thats in the east 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:843E:4BA2:3AE:9770 (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People don't interpret "Eastern United States" that way though. 'Midwest and South' would be a lot less confusing Yobatna (talk) 00:20, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that when you say "people" you mean Americans. I'm not American. I much prefer geographic precision in labelling over American slang terms for regions. I would interpret "Eastern United States" to mean the eastern half of that country. Remember that Wikipedia is global, not just for American readers. HiLo48 (talk) 01:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support: lots of deaths. JayCubby 21:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait. Evaluation is still being done, and the outbreak sequence the article is about is still ongoing. SPC has continued activity at least through Monday. That all makes this a trick article to keep in posting shape. That said, the London Tornado alone makes this quite posting-worthy - I don't want to mention it in the same breath as Mayfield because that really was another level of tragedy, but it is true we haven't seen that level of fatalities from a single tornado since. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Somerset tornado was given a preliminary rating of EF4 or EF3+ very close to what the Mayfield was rated, even though that one had higher kills. Shaneapickle (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Shaneapickle, the tornado is currently "EF2+" (article is inaccurate) and several tornadoes are usually rated EF4 each year. I wouldn't say this event rises close to the magnitude of December 10, 2021, but that's just me. — ^EF⁵ 17:37, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support as article creator. It's looking like this is the most impactful tornado event of the year so far, about on par with March 13-16 (which we posted, though that had a higher death toll also attributed to wildfires etc). The London, Kentucky tornado had a very high death toll of 19, the deadliest worldwide in four years, and the St. Louis tornado caused major damage in a very populated area. More tornadoes are being surveyed, and while the rating of some tornadoes may not be in, the fact is the death toll and objective devastation doesn't wait for NWS Jackson (which is functioning below grade due to Trump's DOGE)'s slow surveying work. More severe weather is occurring today but that has been split into a separate article. The article is also up to quality in my opinion. Departure– (talk) 14:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think ALT4 is the least awkwardly worded blurb, so I'd support that alt over anything else. Departure– (talk) 14:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support For Alt3 - Significant loss of life and property damage. CoatCheck (talk) 14:42, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per altblurb 3, I would support removing links to the locations, or leaving only one link targeting Kentucky. The linked article for the region is more of a geological look at the region than a geographical one. Departure– (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed.  Kentuckian |💬   16:49, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose on quality because the aftermath section is one section (which should be tagged but I can’t because the page is semi-protected.) Weak support when fixed. 2600:387:15:5110:0:0:0:7 (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article has been semi-protected partially due to sockpuppetry / long-term abuse, in addition to vandalism and unsourced additions - before determining whether to post, note that the above IP address is in a range identified at the SPI. Departure– (talk) 20:56, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if identifying why the page is semi protected is helpful to the discussion that this article’s quality is not sufficient for posting… 2600:387:15:5110:0:0:0:7 (talk) 20:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: UDA Leader. Article looks good aside from maybe 1-3 citations that are needed. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Australian football player HiLo48 (talk) 02:54, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Polish contralto who appeared internationally and had music composed for her voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Hungarian-American mathematician and 2005 Abel Prize laureate. 240F:7A:6253:1:2551:1C0F:F1BB:5714 (talk) 09:17, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Sourced and long enough. Grimes2 16:04, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: This target article was featured on DYK on August 10, 2024. The Senatorial results has completed the tally on May 16. Moraljaya67 (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Added alt2. Don't know why just the Senate result is noted, but not the House. Natg 19 (talk) 16:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd agree on including the House election results, but this is a bit more complicated. The Alyansa is mostly a Senate-only ticket or list. Its component parties contest the House and local elections separately. One of the analysis from the election is that the polls got it wrong when they said the Alyansa will win a clear majority of the contested Senate seats, but wht happened is they won exactly half of the seats contested, with the last seat being endorsed by a rival ticket. As for the blurb I don't know if we can fit the fact that Lakas is a component party of the Alyansa. Howard the Duck (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting this to be moved on May 16. National tally was completed on May 16. Until that time, local media were hushed on making pronouncements if candidates actually won. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:02, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Moved the nomination to May 16. Moraljaya67 (talk) 03:08, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not going to purport to be an expert on how Philippine politics works, but I feel we probably should be having the House results lead the blurb, no? The realignment there appears to have been quite dramatic. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, my bad, I'm seeing that due to alliances that's not really the case. Oops. DarkSide830 (talk) 05:34, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Well sourced article and an important topic! NewishIdeas (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I have suggested ALT3 that links to 2025 Philippine Senate election and 2025 Philippine House of Representatives elections instead of 2025 Philippine general election. Howard the Duck (talk)
• Marking as updated and ready. This has gone for far too long enough. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:16, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Honors section needs citations. Offending section was removed. Natg 19 (talk)

 TiffanyAlThani (talk)

• Not ready Some sources are needed. Grimes2 16:07, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Mostly ready. Natg 19 (talk)

• Support Sourced and long enough. Grimes2 16:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 BabbaQ (talk) 17:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Article is well-sourced and of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 20:38, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted – Schwede66 03:33, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: One of the known lyric tenors of the 1960s and 1970s, - the list of capital cities where he performed could be even longer. The article was mostly there, thanks especially to Voceditenore - not literally the creator, but adding most of the content and referencing. I updated the Met ref and added the GSL. More expansion possible. -- --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Appears to have appropriate depth; fully referenced. Spencer^T•C 06:20, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American serial killer executed on May 15. Article needs a little work. Natg 19 (talk) 20:45, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: League season article has almost no prose and needs major work but the FC Barcelona and La Liga articles are good. Abcmaxx (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You've probably proposed literally hundreds of headlines, and your blurbs are way too long for almost all of them. When have we ever posted something like "with 2 matches left after a 2-0 derby win over RCD Espanyol" or even that it's the 94th season? Kicking222 (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Propose altblurb I think there should be an altblurb, like FC Barcelona wins their 28th title against RCD Espanyol to make it simple due to @Kicking222's comment on this ITN candidcacy. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:581A:D0AD:AC67:921D (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on quality no season summary or much useful prose on the season article. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Former Lampung deputy governor. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support article is good to go. Sahaib (talk) 18:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose no citation for date of birth. Also, the footnote for the entire early life and education section as well as the first two paragraphs of the career section is not actually to a 'biography', despite it being described as such. Rather, it is actually to an unusual "biodata" PDF whose origin and reliability seems unclear to me. In any event, the biodata form does not provide support for any of the many claims made. Needs work. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 23:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's from a government website. Try to translate the title of the website before commenting on the origins or reliability. If that's your main concern, there are several articles that I could offer as a substitute; I'll fix it shortly. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:32, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, I read the source before commenting on it - I stand by what I said: it is unclear what context the biodata form comes from and it was being used as a source for claims not supported by it. The article has now been modified to remove the inappropriate citations to this source though, so I support. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 15:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Is there any information about what he accomplished as regent/deputy governor? The body of the article mostly describes a list of roles and election results, without much additional depth about what he accomplished in key roles. Spencer^T•C 06:19, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Australian football player, coach, and commentator. HiLo48 (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose there are some statements in the article that cited Wikipedia Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 11:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: French journalist and television presenter. Mr. Lechkar (talk) 23:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Needs improved sourcing.—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American football player for the Miami Dolphins —Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Appropriate depth, fully referenced. Marking ready. Spencer^T•C 13:39, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted. --PFHLai (talk) 15:36, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: US Secretary of Commerce. Article looks good. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I've fixed the one {{CN}} tag, so it should be good to go now. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 22:44, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Bryson’s article has enough references & details. Blaylockjam10 (talk) 03:35, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The career section is just a bunch of positions, with no breadth on what he accomplished. "Citing Bryson's environmental view" is later mentioned re: his Secretary of Commerce nomination, but there's no inkling on what that entails. Then a dedicated § 2012 traffic accidents and_resignation section seems a bit too prominent, like a controversy section, when no charges were filed, and reads too much like a play-by-play instead of a summary. I've tagged the § Secretary of Commerce for undue weight.—Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American actor with some high-profile roles. Death was on the 7th but first reports of it seem to be on this date (and now only getting to major sources). Article has usual problems for actors, as well as lacking more info on his death. Masem (t) 12:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A lot of uncited statements Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 12:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Is there any photo of him that can be uploaded in article? BilboBeggins (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 240F:7A:6253:1:281A:3BBE:CB81:2EAD (talk) 04:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Well-written and cited, no tags. Jusdafax (talk) 06:53, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Article is very good. --Werter1995 (talk) 15:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Article is very sufficent and looks good. 2600:1009:B198:E357:1A37:9126:4960:16D1 (talk) 22:36, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• * Support Quality article. Tagging ready. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 23:26, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted—Bagumba (talk) 03:59, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 ArionStar (talk) 19:31, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I don't see any problems. Cambalachero (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Most of his books don't have a ISBN. Grimes2 20:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is well-sourced and of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 01:01, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Soft oppose The last two sections (about his books) are entirely unreferenced. Otherwise, it looks good. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 23:27, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• The string of bullet-points after the prose is still largely unsourced. Please add more REFs. --PFHLai (talk) 15:08, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 --Panam2014 (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This does not even have its own article, and is not important to post on ITN, this comes from a military junta, like Tajikistan and other nations, they do this, they are dictators, so we are not a newspaper. 2606:9400:98A0:92A0:4118:262A:9078:8BF5 (talk) 19:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Wouldn't it be a crisis for the ASS of Africa? Scuba 19:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on notability, but this really should have its own article Kowal2701 (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose The event described does not have an article. The dissolution is not discussed in any of the articles linked in the blurb (save for literally the five-word sentence, "On 13 May 2025, Goïta dissolves all political parties" in the Goita article). There needs to be a valid target article which will be bolded. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 20:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support on notability, but it needs to at least have an article before being posted. NewishIdeas (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a standalone article is not a requirement for ITN, just that there is an updated article. Per WP:ITNUPDATE,the decision as to when an article is updated enough is subjective, but a five-sentence update (with at minimum three references, not counting duplicates) is generally more than sufficient, while a one-sentence update is highly questionable. Natg 19 (talk) 21:45, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment According to One-party state, Mali has been here before from 1960–68 and 1976-91. The current junta was already failing to hold elections and this decree is an extension of its tyranny. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:12, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: this sounds significant, but there's no prose description of these events in any of the linked articles, so nothing for us to assess. If it's an update to an existing article, there needs to be at least a full paragraph of referenced prose describing the events, supported by references. If it's a new article, more like three paragraphs to avoid being a stub. Articles should be updated before making an ITN nomination. Modest Genius ^talk 11:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support on notability and quality, I added a two-paragraph section (List of political parties in Mali#Dissolution) detailing the context and the changes themselves. I hope this is enough of an update for posting. The orange tag is still a bit of an issue, although it doesn't pertain to the updated section. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 09:37, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• An orange tag is a showstopper, regardless what it pertains to. Schwede66 01:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American physicist. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 16:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wait Odd extended quote from a book that I am not knowledgeable enough to correct. Bremps... 03:05, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted Stephen 01:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article: José Mujica (talk · history · tag)
Recent deaths nomination
Blurb:  Former president of Uruguay José Mujica (pictured) dies at the age of 89. (Post)
News source(s): Reuters
Credits:

• Nominated by TDKR Chicago 101 (talk · give credit)

Recent deaths of any person, animal or organism with a Wikipedia article are always presumed to be important enough to post (see this RFC and further discussion). Comments should focus on whether the quality of the article meets WP:ITNRD.

Nominator's comments: Influential former President of Uruguay, arguably an influential South American politician in the 2010s. International obits already being published. Article in decent shape. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as RD: The article is in good shape, but he's not big enough for a blurb. He's nowhere near the international significance of Pope Francis, a recent death that merited a blurb. Cambalachero (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Big enough. A major political figure in Latin America, called the "poorest president in the world". ArionStar (talk) 20:32, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Article looks good. Major political figure in his region as well as his nation. Passed several major reforms in Uruguay during his tenure. Ornithoptera (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Notable enough for blurb. Sahaib (talk) 21:30, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb Notable enough; he was a major political figure in Latin America. Cocu15 (talk) 21:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb A household name for people around the world, especially due to his humility. I've heard his name many times in sermons and motivational seminars. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 22:02, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• For those recommending a blurb, the article is very weak in explaining how he merits being considered a major figure. There are details scattered around but there should be a dedicated section that a reader can immediately be drawn to to understand that. Obits now may be able to flesh that out. Otherwise as it stands, I am not convinced he was a major figure to qualify for a blurb, as just being a former leader is not sufficient for that. Masem (t) 22:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Is this a comment or was this supposed to be a "Support RD"? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 02:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  For all purpose, yes, the basic RD support is there as the normal quality is met. I just don't like that to a reader coming to the page that his significance as a major figure is something not glaring clear and instead diluted through the article. Masem (t) 13:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support blurb You may have to read the whole article to kind of understand the influence, but I don't feel that (if an "impact and legacy"-esque section doesn't evolve naturally, which it might, especially with obits) we should be summarising articles within themselves just so people clicking through from the main page don't have to read the whole thing. Kingsif (talk) 22:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb. The article is in good condition; it only has one citation needed tag. Flibirigit (talk) 01:09, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Support blurb - Notable indeed and worthy of a blurb. Article could be more comprehensive but is good enough at this time for the Front page, in my view. Decently written and cited. Jusdafax (talk) 01:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Posted blurb, but image protection still hasn't kicked in after 30 minutes. Schwede66 04:32, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Pull, consensus is that old politicians dying when they are out of office shouldn't get blurbs. Also, this discussion wasn't given enough time for editors to weigh in. Abductive (reasoning) 09:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no such consensus. Jiang Zemin, Mikhail Gorbachev, Jimmy Carter, Benito Aquino, George Bush, Sr., even Henry Kissinger who was not head of state, former Greece King, all got posted. Probably there were even more whom I can't remember immediately. BilboBeggins (talk) 09:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Please provide the link on the claimed consensus and/or the discussion that led to it Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 10:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Support RD only as not notable enough for a blurb. Shocked that a blurb was posted less than eight hours after nomination. Celjski Grad (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting support blurb. Seems notable and famous enough for posting, 84 wiki pages. BilboBeggins (talk) 09:55, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support blurb - Mujica's death made the BBC News homepage, which strongly suggests to me that his significance is more than merely local or regional. GenevieveDEon (talk) 12:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I still have not seen, in the article, in this discussion, or in news articles themselves, anything that makes him so internationally significant to deserve a blurb rather than just a RD. Significant, yes: he was a president, he was popular in his home country, he did some stuff as president, he held diplomatic relations with his neighbors, some people said nice things about him... but what else? And with all due respect to Uruguay, he's not even the president of a significant country, such as those in the G20. Cambalachero (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess nickname the world's poorest president makes him standout. BilboBeggins (talk) 15:14, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A nickname? Big deal. All presidents have one. Again, what else? Cambalachero (talk) 15:53, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose pull This is not big news -- only 36K views yesterday -- but he's an interesting subject. And the priority for me is keeping ITN fresh. The blurb which would be reinstated is the Kentucky Derby. That was already over a week stale and it would be disrespectful to pull this for a horse race. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The Uruguayan government held three days of national mourning between May 14th and May 16th, and his state funeral, which included a funeral procession. 2409:4085:2D8F:5433:8088:B9F6:A745:64AE (talk) 13:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That doesn't seem a strong argument. There are always new news stories, ITN is always "fresh". Cambalachero (talk) 13:52, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The previous blurb was the Pope and that was 6 days ago. That's not "fresh". Andrew🐉(talk) 14:35, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  We can't force news to happen. Most of the major stories going on are either tied to existing ongoing or related to politics, which we have termined are not great ITN without clear sign of a larger impact (like the tariffs and trade war onset). Eg the media is obsessed with Trump taking the plane from Qatar but that's not really ITN material. Masem (t) 14:40, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  And yet you support a blurb about the death of a politician, and my request of clarifications about his impact is still unanswered. Cambalachero (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  No, Masem did not. BilboBeggins (talk) 15:11, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear I didn't support posting in its current state - it should be crystal clear of someone's impact or legacy from sourced content in at least a few paragraphs within the article. I think there was some potential for that in this case but as of now the reader has to read through and pick that up from disparate parts of the article to see that. Masem (t) 17:04, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  News is always happening, the news that passes through the gatekeeping of ITNC however is less regular. nableezy - 17:20, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  There's usually plenty of news. To confirm this just look at the Portal:Current events links – this day's has over 10 bullet points. The portal is productive because it doesn't have the same level of obstructive gatekeeping as ITN. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:41, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  That portal doesn't have to worry about article quality. Masem (t) 16:15, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The new Pope was posted in just an hour at ITN while his article was the subject of intense activity of very variable quality. Speed was obviously the priority in that case; not quality. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:58, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support to counteract those trying to pull. I think he is significant enough to keep the blurb. --SpectralIon 16:38, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  An explanation of why you think he's so significant would be more useful than a mere vote. I would have no problem to change to support if someone bothered to point some significant impact of his presidency that I may have overlooked. Cambalachero (talk) 17:43, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

His govt legalized abortion, legalized marijuana, legalized same-sex marriage -- all in Catholic Latin America. I've just added a paragraph on those progressive policies (and others) to the intro in the hope of underscoring his impact (they were all in there but, yes, somewhat dispersed). Moscow Mule (talk) 06:02, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All that seems a bit too little and inconsequential to me (in Argentina, Alfonsín sent the heads of the military junta to trial, Menem and Milei solved two hyperinflation processes; that's a bit more of an impact than just getting some people to raise hands and pass a bill), but I can see why readers with lower standards would think that's important. Changed to support the blurb. Cambalachero (talk) 14:04, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The readership spiked high enough to put the subject in the top 10 for yesterday – up there with the Pope and Pete Rose. This is evidence that the story has generated good coverage and interest. If it works, don't fix it. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:25, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, posting an article at the top of Wikipedia's front page will send large amounts of traffic to that article. Is that what you're saying? Celjski Grad (talk) 10:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Only some of those views will come from ITN. For example, most of the views come from the mobile view, not the desktop view and ITN is not at the top of that – it's way down below DYK. But either way, attracting lots of readers is a good thing. The staler topics at ITN like Merz or the snooker, are getting comparatively few readers now. ITN should feature fresh content about topics which are currently in the news. Stale stuff which has been run for a week or more doesn't work so well. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Post-posting support blurb Notable figure in Latin American politics. Bedivere (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: American politician. Article needs some citations. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose still needs work on some of the uncited statements Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:24, 14 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft support/almost ready I think the article is actually generally well-referenced, with two exceptions: (1) the committee assignments subsection is unreferenced and (2) the electoral results section is unreferenced. I can try to work on that later today or tomorrow, if it is still unresolved. In any event, that information is certainly publicly available, and I think the article is close to ready. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 23:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished adding some citations to the rest of the bio. The only thing left is the electoral history and the committee sections.Scaramouche33 (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's comments: Former Jakarta deputy governor Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:55, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Article is well-sourced and of sufficient quality for ITN. --MtPenguinMonster (talk) 11:48, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support article is fine. Sahaib (talk) 11:58, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Soft oppose I have orange-tagged one of the sections for NPOV issues - it uses language that borders on outwardly promotional. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 23:37, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've fixed the peacock language problem on the article, tagging admin Stephen to check if the article is ready Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:16, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks in much better shape to me now. I agree it is now ready; great work. Flip^andFlopped ㋡ 15:18, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Sourcing at Eddie Marzuki Nalapraya § Orders, decorations and medals needs improvement.—Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Bagumba: Thank you for your concern, I've added the citation for the decorations. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 05:43, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Great. Struck my oppose.—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Posted – Schwede66 01:04, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

---

Article: Executive Order on Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients (talk · history · tag)
Blurb: ​ Donald J Trump revives executive order for most favored nation drug pricing (Post)
News source(s): 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Nominator's comments: Highly publicized new development that people are likely to want clarification on Czarking0 (talk) 05:08, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Absolutely not, and this shouldn't even have an article. It's a big nothingburger. As of yet, it's just a direction to agencies to request things. If it were a mandate, it would almost certainly be overturned in the courts. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez | me | talk to me! 05:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominators often include links to external websites and other references in discussions on this page. It is usually best to provide such links using the inline URL syntax [http://example.com] rather than using <ref></ref> tags, because that keeps all the relevant information in the same place as the nomination without having to jump to this section, and facilitates the archiving process.

For the times when <ref></ref> tags are being used, here are their contents: