Talk:Study confirms efficacy of NewLink Genetics ebola vaccine

showAuthors?
Is there any on-Wikinews equivalent of the "showauthors" function, in which the full list of authors is retained in the code but only the first four authors are visible to the casual reader? Darkfrog24 (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to? They're all authors; if a lot of authors are listed, we list a lot of authors. Scientific studies involve a huge amount of work. Yes, it's messy; life is, sometimes. BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well it clutters things a bit. I don't mind one way or the other personally, but on Wikipedia, it's the form. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:49, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Review
This is really cool, and I really want to see it published, if only because we heavily underreport scientific advances. I'd like to fiddle around with the lede and the inverted pyramid to focus a bit more clearly on Newlink's optimism. My concern is, it needs reviewed tomorrow UTC or it goes stale. I'm painfully aware that I jumped in on the Aleppo article, disqualified myself from review, and then had to watch it gradually go stale (twice) and not be able to help. If I play around with it for a bit will you be likely to get a review done? BRS (Talk)   (Contribs) 22:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Supposing you can do what I gather you're hoping for, I'll undertake to scrounge the time for it. --Pi zero (talk) 00:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the late start BRS. I was contributing to the project by defying the sterotype of Wikipedians being sad doofs who have no friends or family or things to do on Christmas.  Thanks for being an industrious non-doof who takes the time to contribute to the public reading experience on Christmas. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:51, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Last year I worked at least 12hrs on Christmas Day, so sitting with my partner around the house is a refreshing change for me. BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 01:46, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This might be a candidate for the rarely-used "new information come to light" clause. BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 03:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment on your new changes: The review voucher is not for this vaccine. Working on the vaccine qualifies Newlink for the voucher to use on a future project.  Or they can sell it for hundreds of millions of dollars.  The thing that is being fast-tracked via the voucher is not this vaccine.  It's like if the oldest kid wins a school contest, then their younger sibling gets free tuition.  The FDA may also fast-track the ebola vaccine but that's less about an award program and more about saving lives and avoiding human suffering. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And for some reason I can't change the article name. Darkfrog24 (talk) 04:44, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What changed article name do you want? --Pi zero (talk) 13:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The old one would do, but basically anything that doesn't suggest that the fast-track is for this vaccine. (Yes the Newlink rep also said that the FDA might fast-track it, but the point of the article is the voucher.) Also, as BRS points out, most of the sources say NewLink with a capital L.  I guess Wikinews doesn't have the same rule against non-standard capitalization that Wikipedia does.
 * U.S. FDA may award NewLink Genetics a fast-track voucher for confirming efficacy of ebola vaccine 
 * ''U.S. FDA may award NewLink Genetics a fast-track voucher for work with ebola vaccine
 * U.S. FDA may award Newlink Genetics a priority review voucher for confirming efficacy of ebola vaccine
 * Whichever of those sounds good to you, or equivalent. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Renamed. Wondering why you had difficulty, of course.  Moved without leaving a redirect, though that can be risky with an unpublished article because if somebody starts editing a page before it's moved without redirect, the software doesn't (that I've ever seen) warn them the page is no longer there before saving the edit.  --Pi zero (talk) 13:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That leaves the current focus as single source. BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:52, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the headline can't put its weight on the single-sourced element. --Pi zero (talk) 17:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Review of revision 4273417 [Passed]

 * Oh! There actually was another publication that covered the voucher. I just removed it because the Des Moines Register was better and the other one cited it.  Figured that made it redundant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2016 (UTC)