Talk:Russian troops advance into Georgia, violating truce
Add topicDo not self-publish please. --SVTCobra 14:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 |
This article has been reviewed by Anonymous101 (talk · contribs) and has failed its review at 14:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Good, but quite short. Anonymous101talk 14:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC) The article should be switched from {{Review}} to {{Develop}}, if it has not already been done, and these issues should be addressed. It is recommended that the appropriate templates be added to the article itself, if applicable. This notice should be updated with subsequent reviews. |
Eh, both articles are from Associated Press. We need two independent sources. --SVTCobra 15:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I saw cnn reporting on it and that they not anymore head against Tiblisi but turned north. I guess they want a bufferzone or someting. And according to swedish radionews Russia admited troops around Gori. Russians claim they destroy Georgian military equipment. At all The article should include this. Maby a breakingtag and keeping it updated should avoid article fall in the 'void of old newsiness' international (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- added non AP source. Anonymous101talk 16:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- The Time article is independent, but it does not verify the facts asserted by this article, esp. the part about Russian troops being deep inside Georgia. --SVTCobra 16:42, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
The npoving
[edit]As it is a draft I have no problem with edit bold. The part have not much with the headline or other part of the article and make the article unneutral, POV. It is not firstleadmaterial in its current form. international (talk) 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
"perceived bias" OK, Can you find another quote that respond to the events better than this and perhaps a little something from the Russian side it would be nice. There is lot of BS flying arond in the 'mediawar' international (talk) 16:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Unpublished
[edit]I unpublished this article because it does not follow WN:NPOV and it relies on a single source for the main thrust of the article. Please improve the article before republishing. --SVTCobra 17:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
- I found another source and made other improvements to the article. Please review. --SVTCobra 21:13, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
New peer review
[edit]  |
This article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 03:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: Short. It really could use some expansion, especially given the size of the referred articles. Will publish. The article may be switched from {{Review}} to {{Publish}}, if it has not already been done. |
The article is still misleading... --Nemo bis (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)