Talk:New York Assembly passes same-sex marriage bill

locking the picture at its current version
Hello. I skimmed through a few pages a while back to familiarize myself with policy, and I recall reading somewhere a suggestion that if you're using an image that is likely to change frequently (such as the current same-sex marriage map), you should re-save it under a different file name such that you "lock" the image in its current version. Does that make sense, and do you think this would be a good idea for this particular article? Ragettho (talk) 04:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a very good idea for this article. That picture is about as sure to change as can be.  --Pi zero (talk) 04:35, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. So would one have to "protect" the picture at its current version and save it somewhere else? I'm sorry if I'm asking really elementary questions; I can't seem to find that policy page that I'm referring to. Ragettho (talk) 04:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1246569 [Failed]

 * Also, I put the names of the states who have passed the law into the article. Otherwise, the map makes no sense. Once the reader can see that, except for Iowa, all the states that have passed it are states next to each other in the northeast, the political situation nationwide becomes a little more understandable. Afterall, there are 50 states, most of them much larger with a more varied populace. Also, there are states and local jurisdictions that allow s but not marriage. Civil unions should be mentioned in the article if the map, which has a color for civil unions, is used, IMO.

I agree that these little, curt articles do not inform the reader, who has usually already heard or seen the headline news. Wikinews should be able to do better. Mattisse (talk) 19:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Really in-depth articles are great (and a bear to review). They aren't the only synthesis articles of value; a short article that sums things up well and neutrally can be helpful too, if it's about something that some of our audience weren't aware was going on.  What really bothered me was that the article didn't seem to be summing things up adequately; it was missing some important pieces of the picture.


 * The article may have been intended to be something that could be gotten out the door quickly, which also has some merit. Unfortunately, the problems with it just accumulated; I'm not sure any one of the problems would have been enough on its own to justify a failing review, which made for a very uncomfortable review process.  But they weren't on their own.  --Pi zero (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)