Talk:After visa snags, all-girl Afghan team honored for 'courageous achievement' at international robotics competition

Reporter notes
Note to reviewers: There is more than one CBS video. I used the one that shows the girls in their gray headscarves, left side of the screen. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm cool with sending this up today if the reviewer thinks it's ready but it looks like it would be easy to update tomorrow. I have to step away for a bit, and it's fine with me if anyone wants to modify or hit review.  One of my concerns is that even though the Afghan team is (rightly) getting more media coverage, we shouldn't ignore or minimize the contributions of the Gabon and Estonia teams, who are probably feeling overlooked.  The nature of the competition means any accomplishments are shared accomplishments. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Items that I think could use other eyes:
 * Which of the two team member quotes to use.
 * How much focus on the reaction to President Trump's intervention? The Independent provides many quotes.
 * Title. Darkfrog24 (talk) 12:44, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Relevance
The lede should explain why the focal event is significant. It didn't come through clearly to me &mdash; and I know I'm not alone &mdash; from the current lede. --Pi zero (talk) 19:54, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess things seem more obvious from elbow length. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * What I'm reading between the lines and remembering from other youth robotics competitions is that the Afghan robot probably didn't perform very well (they had one day to test it), but no one wants to say it because that doesn't jibe with the triumphant story. If it were outscoring robots other countries whose builders had more time to prepare, these source articles would probably say so.  Fourteenth out of 163 is pretty good.  FIRST Global does not seem to have yet released a full listing of how many points each team earned.  If one comes out before this gets reviewed, I'll add it as a straight fact.  Frankly, if they were even middle of the pack after having so much less to work with than the other teams, that's still impressive.
 * I think there might also be a story in the Gambian team, if that wouldn't imbalance the main page. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:12, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4331757 [Not ready]

 * This looks like it could be an easy fix. Other news outlets will probably get to this tomorrow.  So far, ABC also has an article but it looks like they and Al Jazeera both relied on the same AP source material. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To pre-empt confusion, the NYTimes article might be dated yesterday, but it wasn't showing up yesterday or this morning. That's why I didn't just put it in this morning. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Comment (saved here temporarily)
After reading about how the Iranians, Estonians and everyone had so much trouble with shipping their prototypes to the convention hall, I have to wonder if they should just require everyone to ship their robots, even the U.S. and Canada teams who could drive if they wanted. Call it a test of the robot's sturdiness. Can't say it's not relevant to real-world applications. Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Copied to opinions. --Pi zero (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Neutrality?
Courageous? Is that okay to say in the title? Shouldn't it be "After visa snags, all-girl Afghan team honored for 'courageous achievement' at international robotics competition"? Besides, who said it was courageous? Shouldn't we mention it? acagastya PING ME! 07:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (yep, that is what my sign says) acagastya PING ME! 13:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it'd be best to use the quotes in the headline, yes. Is it worth a post-publish rename?  Seems marginal; could reasonably classify it as a typo, the question is whether it's a serious enough one to justify renaming now, or whether (as we sometimes do with minor stylistic points in headlines) we should wait till after it's fully protected in the archives so the rename can't produce double entries in any feeds.  --Pi zero (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Violates a core principle, deserves a rename as soon as possible. acagastya PING ME! 14:41, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm willing. --Pi zero (talk) 14:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Pi zero (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
 * (see this) Just like how we can't mark any revision reviewed without reading the talk page discussion, there should be one asking 'are you sure you do not want to rename the article?' acagastya PING ME! 08:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, there should be; but I wouldn't dare touch the javascript. A review assistant built using the dialog tools, I would expect to be able to make changes to like that; but javascript I've always found way too cantankerous.  --Pi zero (talk) 10:54, 25 July 2017 (UTC)