Talk:Conservative groups hold rally in Washington D.C. claiming U.S. elections were stolen from President Trump

How much time does it take to review this article?
It’s about time someone reviewed this article! How much time can it take!? -ElfSnail123 (talk) 19:27, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Taking that question seriously, I've observed three common patterns in review of synthesis articles. All this is supposing the reviewer is able to conjure the requisite intensity of mental focus for the required time; it's not just a matter of allocating time (indeed, if it were purely a matter of time there would be nothing on the review queue atm).  That kind of intense focus is something a person generally can't manage more than about twice a day at most, and that includes in their non-volunteer life.
 * articles that can be rejected quickly. If you exclude the ones that can be speedy-deleted, there are fewer of these quick-rejection articles than one might think; even if it's obvious the article isn't ready for publication, it may be important to investigate further in order to provide helpful feedback to the reporter, and with or without further investigation the review comments may take considerable time and effort to write.
 * articles that can be passed straightforwardly. A moderately short article (about the size of this one) by an experienced Wikinewsie might take two or three hours of intensive effort to publish.  We want to build tools to help us shorten that time, of course; but we want to build lots of tools that are hard to design and implement and doing so takes still more time-and-effort.
 * articles that have significant problems that may or may not prevent them from passing. These are likely to take at least two or three hours, possibly more.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 19:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm taking a look now, though by this time of evening my brain is turning over slowly enough (as I've slowed down discernibly in the past few years, alas) that I'm not actually marking the article as under review atm. --Pi zero (talk) 00:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4596474 [Not ready]

 * Hi, thanks for the reply! I changed the article based on your comments, however I have some questions. About the electoral college sentence, the only change that I thought of is to remove the world “just”. I assume it isn’t enough. About the content of that sentence, that’s the way it looked like in one of the sources I used (I don’t remember which one anymore). About the lack of transparency, it’s written in several sources that people who spoke told their was a lack of transparency so it’s their anger at the lack of transparency. Should I write “what they call a lack of transparency”? Is the problem with the first paragraph that I quoted Trump’s tweet? Is this the part that should be left for further paragraphs? And about the headlines, should the page be moved to “Pro-Trump groups hold a rally in D.C. to protest elections results December 12, 2020”? And also, I feel that this article lacks a picture of the event but I’m not sure if that’s allowed because of copyright. Thanks in advance, -ElfSnail123 (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, you'll need to resubmit this quite soon if there's to be time to re-review it within its freshness window; I (or any other reviewer) would need plenty of time, so resubmitting by midday (three or four hours from now) would be highly desirable.
 * Re the electoral-college sentence. There were two concerns there, similarity to source (for the earlier part of the sentence) and misleading impression about the character of the then-anticipated event (for the later part of the sentence).  The similarity-to-source can be disrupted by grammatical rearrangement, and what happened on Monday (don't forget to refer to it in past tense, now) could simply be described as something like 'formal vote to elect the next president' or something of that general sort; putting those together, the form 'before X meets to Y-adjective Z-verb' could become, say, 'before the Y-adjective Z-noun of X'.  So it might &mdash;for example&mdash; read something like "two days before the formal vote of the electoral college", with or without some words at the end further specifying the nature of the vote, such as "two days before the formal vote of the electoral college to elect the next president" (or choose the next president, or likely there's some entirely better way to put it).
 * Re lack of transparency, the fact that a bunch of the protesters said the lack existed does not in any way allow us to say it existed; on the contrary, it encourages us to avoid endorsing the claim (and we also wouldn't want to flatly deny it &mdash; if we were to get into that at all we'd want to do so by describing evidence, probably with attribution: somebody reported/stated such-and-such, or the like). One could always fall back on that unimaginative but effective tool of reporting, the word "alleged": here, "alleged lack of clarity".  Or "claimed lack of clarity", or some variant thereof.
 * Re the headline, note that an international audience should not be assumed to know what "D.C." means or even &mdash;hard though this may be to imagine&mdash; who "Trump" is or what country he's associated with. You want to slip in the country early on, and somehow also the word "president".  Identifying the year of the election should likely suffice to pin down "when" in the headline.
 * Re images, our fair use policy does not allow us to claim fair use on any image copyrighted by a news org.
 * --Pi zero (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * , thanks for the reply! I have changed the first 2 things based on your comments, however about the headline I don’t think I have a permission to move pages, but should it be just Washington D.C. instead of D.C.? Also I think it’s a stretch to suggest they don’t know who Trump is, and even if they don’t, the article is about Pro-Trump groups (groups that support Trump), not Trump himself. Should it be groups that support President Trump? Also I’m curious about what’s the point of . Thanks in advance, -ElfSnail123 (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just a quick note before I leave for dinner -- new accounts may not be able to move pages (you might have to wait a couple of days before you would be able to move it). If you need to move now, just leave a message on talk page "Move request" and mention what you want the page to be called. •–•  14:35, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, I requested a move., I typed instead of the template that was there. Was that the right think to do or should I have done something different? Thanks in advance, -ElfSnail123 (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It's perfectly effective to manually change develop to review. It should be possible to accomplish the same thing by clicking the 'submit for review' button. --Pi zero (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Btw: haveyoursay provides a link to the opinions page of a published article. We don't even create the opinions page until an article is published, though, to avoid having people discuss content of something that isn't the actual published form of the article (e.g., discussing inaccurate or biased content).  If the article appears to be unpublished, haveyoursay doesn't provide a link. --Pi zero (talk) 20:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. Thank you very much! -ElfSnail123 (talk) 20:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Move request
Please move this page to Conservative groups hold a rally in Washington D.C. and claim the U.S. elections were stolen from President Trump. Or are there more stuff that need to be changed with the headline? Thanks in advance, -ElfSnail123 (talk) 14:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved to "Conservative groups hold rally in Washington D.C. claiming U.S. elections were stolen from President Trump".  omits most definite/indefinite articles; "claiming" is one less word and avoids the awkward feeling of compounding multiple headlines via "and".  Possibly this should be further tweaked to qualify which elections; will think about that. --Pi zero (talk) 14:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank ou very much! -ElfSnail123 (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

A question about categories
This article isn’t in any category and I noticed that nobody mentioned it. Am I supposed to add it to categories only after it gets approved? Thanks in advance, -ElfSnail123 (talk) 18:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * you can add categories at any point in time. You can also enable Hot Cat to make it easier to add categories. •–•  18:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! -ElfSnail123 (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Review of revision 4596628 [Passed]

 * Thank you very much! -ElfSnail123 (talk) 09:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)