Talk:U.S. President Obama's farewell address focuses on accomplishment

Full Transcript
Can be found at http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-obama-farewell-speech-transcript-20170110-story.html
 * Thanks. The cited source for the raw text of Obama's speech is NPR.  I prefer it because it lists the words as he said them, including responses to the crowd and improvisation.  The LA Times transcript is the prepared remarks. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Our own view
So how much editorializing do we get to do on here? Obama's speech was so wide-ranging that almost any publication could paint it in any way. The Telegraph is focusing on his warnings to protect democracy, but they could just as easily have picked his paean to American accomplishment, his faith in Millenials, etc. etc. I don't so much as want to give my own take on it as say "Hey look how all the papers are characterizing this differently/focusing on just this one part of a big speech." On the 'pedia, that would be at least borderline OR. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, we do OR here occasionally. Personally, what I'd like to see is us at least touching upon all the key aspects of the speech. When doing it your way, we run into a neutrality problem; which papers do we choose? Possibly not insurmountable, but would need done with great care. I'd be interested to see what others have to say, though. BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 13:43, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was expecting more diversity of reaction than there was. Salon, Telegraph and the Post all thought Obama was issuing a warning.  Anywho, I hope you like it.  I went less for punchy wording and more for flow.  If I've got a concern it might be that it's too quote-heavy. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:55, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

"Only" vs "Biggest" superpower
I was going for snappy prose here. Here's my source, Time magazine, for referring to the U.S. as the world's "only" rather than "biggest" superpower. China is on its way but it still doesn't quite qualify. Darkfrog24 (talk) 03:50, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Review of revision 4278308 [Passed]

 * Regarding neutrality, I was going for "punchy" per review of a previous article (which in turn involved some reservations about the level of explanation about the electoral college, the lack of which had been cited as a weakness in the article before that). This is a Wikiproject and individual variation among reviewers is to be expected.  I'm watching Agastya Chandrakant struggle with getting that Telegram article past review, but if you look at their contribution history, some highly similar articles&mdash;same author, similar subject, same problems&mdash;have been approved in the past.
 * looks perfect for any article about the actual handover.
 * If it goes well, yes. Fingers crossed. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Just because we've published articles in the past does not mean we must slavishly continue to handle their issues the same way in the future; there's room for us to learn and try to improve our practices. We don't continue to improve any given article indefinitely over time (archiving policy); but how to handle a particular issue can be an ongoing dialog over time.  Sometimes I do manage to address such developing issues in review comments, with an eye particularly to noting when something I've just done ought not be taken too much as a model going forward.  All this is related, also, to how one goes about maintaining standards without becoming bureaucratic.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is itself an article another reviewer could have a radically different view of ;) BRS  (Talk)   (Contribs) 21:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)