Talk:Bush deploys military in the US for active duty as federal response force

From Wikinews, the free news source you can write!
Jump to navigation Jump to search

It still presents a non-neutral point of view. It would also be helpful if we observed the Insurrection Act which allows the president to legally employ federal troops in such a way. --99.139.235.202 06:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it is just me, but I'm not sure this article presents a NPOV. The article from ArmyTimes.com is straight-forward, but bulk of the article is based on a youtube video of a 30 minute radio interview with a political activist, clearly not neutral, ther's nothing else to balance it out. Kamnet (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be wild factual inaccuracies that seem to prevent a simple "bring this within WN:NPOV"-type of fix. The whole premise seems in violation of WN:NPOV as it considers an exercise to be a troop deployment. If I am misreading something, please enlighten me. --SVTCobra 00:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Revision 706551 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

  • Copyright: Not ready: n/r
  • Newsworthiness: Passed
  • Verifiability: Not ready: missing a second source, no backup for claims of first time in 200 years, no backup for info from Naomi Wolf. 849 billion bail out? I thought it was 700 billion. Big difference.
  • NPOV: Not ready: n/r
  • Style: Not ready: No cats, no source formatting, no youtube links,

Comments by reviewer: Sorry, but this needs _alot_ of work --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the above? Ask.

If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 706551 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Copyright: Not ready: n/r
  • Newsworthiness: Passed
  • Verifiability: Not ready: missing a second source, no backup for claims of first time in 200 years, no backup for info from Naomi Wolf. 849 billion bail out? I thought it was 700 billion. Big difference.
  • NPOV: Not ready: n/r
  • Style: Not ready: No cats, no source formatting, no youtube links,

Comments by reviewer: Sorry, but this needs _alot_ of work --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions about the above? Ask.

If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

I'm going to try and fix this up, it's interesting but there's very little on it, would appreciate it if someone more experienced could help. :) --Poisonous (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay[edit]

Basically finished, if someone could read it over for me before I set it to review tommorrow (waiting for kamnet's military friend to give some info on it, which should make it more neutral) and let me know how it is? --Poisonous (talk) 01:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Revision 708620 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: Nice to see a re-write --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Revision 708620 of this article has been reviewed by ShakataGaNai (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 04:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Comments by reviewer: Nice to see a re-write --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Thank you![edit]

I was the one who originally posted this article. A copy of my original can be found at my livejournal on Oct 9th. This was the first article I tried pushing on Wikinews. Thank you to all the people who finally got this posted. I'm sorry if the article had a biased point of view, if you feel that way: I did not intentionally write the article that way, I did the best I could. I also understand there was a bit of direct copying from the original article from ArmyTimes: I'm a novice writer, perhaps if I put it into quotation marks we could avoid copyright infringement?

Again, thank you to everyone who got this article posted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.226.230.36 (talk) 22:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikinews.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bush_deploys_military_in_the_US_for_active_duty_as_federal_response_force&oldid=709006"