Talk:Wikinews interviews Jo Jorgensen, U.S. Libertarian Party presidential nominee

status of review
I have finised reviewing the interview except for the claim "There is currently only one Libertarian in Congress, Justin Amash". Seems like the question for final plea was omitted. Was that intentional, ? •–• 17:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes.  I plan to include that in the October on the campaign trail article. --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Detroit News source says Amash became the first Libertarian member of Congress in April ("a month ago") by switching from Republican to Libertarian. Is that sufficient corroboration, given the claim is coming from an accredited en.wn reporter who's up on this stuff and was not challenged by the interviewee who clearly ought to know, or do you feel a need for more? --Pi zero (talk) 22:12, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked up his name in the archives and found that. •–• 15:48, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Q/A formatting
I notice the reporter and reviewer have different thoughts in mind on labeling the questions/replies. Apparently, both following different aspects of consistency. There seem to be two schools of thought on this sort of thing, going way back into the earliest days of Wikinews. I'm going to take a few minutes (not many, though, as we've the usual shortage thereof) this morning to add some slight documentation to the templates, in hopes of clarifying things a little. --Pi zero (talk) 14:33, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the reviewer is so insistent. The interview is now inconsistent with the others and it is harder to follow without any indents.--William S. Saturn (talk) 15:47, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * See how much easier it is to follow Wikinews interviews Brian Carroll, American Solidarity Party presidential nominee.  Why should readability and consistency be sacrificed just because an old template exists? --William S. Saturn (talk) 16:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, I feel the other way about it. I don't think readability is compromised because questions are in bold -- a stark contrast.  Moreover, the template makes it easier to access the data by DOM manipulation.  The template, imho, does not do anything negative and only serves additional purpose to make things easier to access. •–•  16:31, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * After editor wars and browser wars, now we have this. :P -- any thoughts on having a predictable manner? •–•  16:34, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It occurs to me that this particular set of interviews (other than this one atm) have a consistent style. --Pi zero (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I hesitated before submitting an edit to use the format of the other interviews in this set; eventually I did submit such an edit, though. WSS as the reporter has of course acquiesced to the strongly asserted preference of the publishing reviewer, Acagastya, (though WSS did correct me where I'd missed some things in my edit,) and I'm just one other reviewer.  Acagastya clearly isn't keen on this format, but thus far has not actually rejected my edit, either.  I believe I would not actually be prohibited from self-sighting this since it's format rather than content, but it's big enough one doesn't do it casually; better sooner than later, and the more discussion-and-consensus the better.  If the edit is still hanging when I get up in the morning (about eight or nine hours from now), neither accepted nor rejected, I might self-sight after all.   any thoughts on this?  --Pi zero (talk) 02:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please link to examples for both kinds of formatting? I'm at a loss as to what the differences are. Gryllida (talk) 04:03, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * --Pi zero (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * For shorter examples, see Template:WNIR. --Pi zero (talk) 04:17, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think personally I've used something similar to WNIR previously, but with initials only (not the full name) on 2nd+ occurrence. However, I recall Acagastya said that writing the full name provides an advantage for search results on the web.
 * The blocking seems a bit easier to read -- on larger screens.
 * Also, I've tried combining the two approaches, but that didn't seem visually appealing, did it? Gryllida (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The sandbox experiment doesn't seem visually appealing to me, either.
 * My immediate proposal is to use the style in this particular article that has been used by other interviews in this current set of interviews. --Pi zero (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me. Gryllida (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not mean to cut off discussion, but with some additional support and given that these changes are better made sooner rather than later, I've sighted the edit. --Pi zero (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, I've tried combining the two approaches, but that didn't seem visually appealing, did it? Gryllida (talk) 04:33, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The sandbox experiment doesn't seem visually appealing to me, either.
 * My immediate proposal is to use the style in this particular article that has been used by other interviews in this current set of interviews. --Pi zero (talk) 04:50, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable to me. Gryllida (talk) 04:53, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not mean to cut off discussion, but with some additional support and given that these changes are better made sooner rather than later, I've sighted the edit. --Pi zero (talk) 05:46, 30 October 2020 (UTC)