Talk:James Webb Space Telescope moves to final orbit

Paywall?
@Cromium, NYT is paywalled right? 2006nishan178713t@lk 04:16, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, in most cases it is. However, it seems it does let you read one item for free each month, and it let Archive.org access the page yesterday. So, I’m hoping we can skip that rule on this occasion. [24Cr][talk] 07:33, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure thing 2006nishan178713t@lk 08:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

If you have the time, could you please check this article out? - Xbspiro (talk) 16:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * @Xbspiro, Cromium can't review it as @Cromium has a major contribution in its creation. See History 2006nishan178713t@lk 16:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bddpaux or @JJLiu112 can help? 2006nishan178713t@lk 16:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I strongly discourage using NYT. Please remove it. JJLiu112 (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Removed. We have enough sources as it is but I hope we can revisit the policy sometime this year. [24Cr][talk] 17:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Cromium Can we remove the NYT source? 2006nishan178713t@lk 08:05, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Also tagging as he has been active not too long ago. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * @Acagastya 2006nishan178713t@lk 05:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * You are right, I haven't checked page history, just pinged those I have seen to had been active in recent changes. - Xbspiro (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We do not use paywalled sources, and generally we avoid NYT because it is mostly paywalled. However, if one disables JavaScript, or uses something like /, one could bypass the paywall. It is always a trouble, and while there are ways to get around, I would suggest, if the info is available elsewhere, opt for that. If not, and if the fact is important, well, add the source and the fact. If the reviewer can't access it, they will remove it. •–• 07:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree 2006nishan178713t@lk 07:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The article was not paywalled when I used it as a source, but it is now. --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is a trial period or something like that. 2006nishan178713t@lk 18:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4658874 [Not ready]

 * I've replaced the New York Times source with three others. --Ixfd64 (talk) 09:07, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting Review
The NYT source has been replaced. You can review it now @JJLiu112. 2006nishan178713t@lk 13:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Legislators
Please indicate who the legislators are before I conduct my final review. --JJLiu112 (talk) 19:11, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have added the name of the subcommittee that proposed the cancellation. I don’t think we will need specific names here. [24Cr][talk] 19:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Review of revision 4659034 [Passed]

 * ✅, extraneous sources removed. --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)


 * While it turned out to be an okay article, what was the rationale behind publishing it stale? - Xbspiro (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I understand the information was relevant, as the telescope is currently orbiting. Additionally, while Wikinews regulation, there have been times where we’ve been a bit lax with staleness just because of inactivity; Israel opposition parties announce coalition, form new government was published after four days, for example. Particularly as it was relevant and, imo, significant (which I realise is subjective), I decided just to carry on with publishing anyways. JJLiu112 (talk) 18:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yep....while it can be dangerous (sort of), historically we've been known to wiggle just a pinch on defining staleness/freshness. It can be a slippery slope, but often the general value/merit of the article is considered. I say these things before I've even glanced at the article, though.--Bddpaux (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)