I thought carefully about WN:When. We emphasize the importance of specifying on what particular day the focal event of an article took place; the advice at WN:Five Ws and an H says if the lede doesn't have a "day" word in it, such as "today" or "yesterday", there's probably something wrong. With the release of a scientific study, this day is usually the date of publication of a paper in a scientific journal. However, in this case I don't see any sign of a scientific journal, and suspect there may not have been one; the result may have been publicized by telling local newspapers. I suspect this is also a story that has almost no coverage in English. So I'm allowing freshness. I considered whether we should add some words to the lede about it having just been reported, as another way to provide a "day" word and clarify to the reader what we actually know, but it's really not clear when it was first reported (the Google news aggregator barely admits it's been reported in English at all, listing one of the two sources cited here; and I've no handle at all on when it might have been published in Assamese).
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
I thought carefully about WN:When. We emphasize the importance of specifying on what particular day the focal event of an article took place; the advice at WN:Five Ws and an H says if the lede doesn't have a "day" word in it, such as "today" or "yesterday", there's probably something wrong. With the release of a scientific study, this day is usually the date of publication of a paper in a scientific journal. However, in this case I don't see any sign of a scientific journal, and suspect there may not have been one; the result may have been publicized by telling local newspapers. I suspect this is also a story that has almost no coverage in English. So I'm allowing freshness. I considered whether we should add some words to the lede about it having just been reported, as another way to provide a "day" word and clarify to the reader what we actually know, but it's really not clear when it was first reported (the Google news aggregator barely admits it's been reported in English at all, listing one of the two sources cited here; and I've no handle at all on when it might have been published in Assamese).
The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.
News neutrality works that way: we report the objective fact that somebody said something, without taking sides on whether or not they are correct. If Senator A says Senator B is engaged in a criminal conspiracy, and Senator B says Senator A is a dick, we should report objectively that they said those things without taking a position, in our reportage, on whether or not either of the statements is true. Even if we, as individual people, believe them both to be correct. --Pi zero (talk) 00:41, 6 October 2016 (UTC)Reply
Aside from general conservativism about changing infobox choice, in this case the place really is rather at the heart of the story. So, let's just leave this one be. --Pi zero (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply
