Reports #6

This list was originally submitted by ARX8x in this appeal. It has been moved to this page to lock its content from ongoing edits.

STATUS: DONE

Referring to: http://telegra.ph/Reports-1-08-01

1) List item 1

https://goo.gl/k7Tm38

Should be valid because he already does it on the template(https://instantview.telegram.org/contest/lanacion.com.py/template4/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lanacion.com.py%2Fcolumnistas%2F2017%2F08%2F01%2Fgarnacha-pop%2F). It's not unreliable because it has "por" and a specific formatting and path.

Admin's comment: The problem is not so much in certain cases being unreliable: it's in the inconsistency on the original website. None of the active templates handle all such cases — and if one would attempt to cover those that don't include any specific markup, it could well end in disaster. For example, if the only info we have is that we need to extract the text from the first paragraph if it starts with the word "por", the template becomes dangerous because it would extract the wrong content as author from an article that starts in something like "Por tantas personas esperado, el estreno del episodio VIII de Star Wars ya está en las salas de cine."

It is for this reason that the word "consistently" was added to the checklist clarification about authors. An example of such consistency can be found on the amnesty international blog: guest posts consistently place author names in the first paragraphs.

2) List item 2

The bulletted content is actually relevant information. It's present in the source and missing from IV. Grade 1 issue.

Try http://www.lanacion.com.py/columnistas/2017/07/31/la-venta-de-buzones-en-el-senado/, http://www.lanacion.com.py/columnistas/2017/07/31/tique-o-factura/ etc

Admin's comment: We have routinely ignored elements like authors' accolades and sources. "Present in the source and missing from IV" is not enough for a G1 issue, it has to be essential.

3) List item 7

https://goo.gl/v2JQT8

Should be valid because it's regular article content that doesn't involve special work to generate IV. A template supported this -> https://goo.gl/wLLuoB

I've seen plenty of instances where admins point to templates(whether participating currently or not) that support content while the winning one doesn't, to reject it. It should be the same for everyone

Admin's comment: We've pointed to templates that were active at the moment. Now that no other template exists that is capable of supporting this, this G7 issue is not critical enough to disqualify a template.

4) List item 12

https://goo.gl/DWhuhE

Well, this is the same as a template not generating IV due to an issue such as having a must-remove facebook like/share embed. The template doesn't generate IV for most pages because of this unnecessary widget. Those pages are perfectly valid for an IV page.

Besides, Ivan Nikitin's template was doing it pretty well. 

Admin's comment: Same as above, these pages could generate an IV, but this is still a G7 issue not significant enough to reject the template. Ivan Nikitin's template was rejected for missing captions.

This problem is something we will definitely address in the next version of the checklist before we start the next contest, but there's not much we can do about this now under the current rules.

5) List item 20

https://goo.gl/ChM7vt

Please be consistent. I've had my templates rejected for the exact same kind of issue in the past. That really is rudimentary to the reading experience IV pages are essentially intended to. 

Admin's comment: Unfortunately, we couldn't locate the issue you are referring to. Kindly submit an appeal on the template that was rejected for the exact same issue (or an appeal on a different issue that includes a link to that template).

6) https://goo.gl/F7Tqps

Last image is missing caption. It's a p with an image and the caption text. Fairly easy. 

Please don't dismiss this by saying it's one-off because some of the issues others got are one-off as well but you still accepted them.

Admin's comment: This issue is minor. While it's possible to extract it, this text is not formatted as a caption in the original in the first place. The template supports captions where they are formatted as such. This is not enough to reject the last template on the domain.