Talk:Bush deploys military in the US for active duty as federal response force
Add topicIt 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)
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)
- 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)
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).
Comments by reviewer: Sorry, but this needs _alot_ of work --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC) 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).
Comments by reviewer: Sorry, but this needs _alot_ of work --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 05:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC) 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)
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)
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).
Comments by reviewer: Nice to see a re-write --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC) 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).
Comments by reviewer: Nice to see a re-write --ShakataGaNai ^_^ 04:51, 12 October 2008 (UTC) 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)