Talk:2009 Palma Nova bombing
Latest comment: 13 years ago by Sturmvogel 66 in topic GA Review
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2009 Palma Nova bombing article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | 2009 Palma Nova bombing has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
![]() | A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on July 31, 2009. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Edit War?
editWho keeps on reverting my edits? I have removed the fact the bomb was near a tourist hotels as I believe it to be irrelevant, ETA has never directly targeted tourists. My edits have been replaced by just a bland summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.21.24 (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
- Your repeated attempts to add unattributed opinion go against WP:TERRORIST, which was pointed out to you on your talk page and in an edit summary. Other problems with your edits are that you repeatedly remove references, including one which sources a quote which has to be sourced. There is no such time as "20:00pm", and it is pointless for you to keep changing [[ETA]] to [[Euskadi Ta Askatasuna|Eta]] for two reasons. Firstly the article is at ETA, and secondly it is always capitalised. O Fenian (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
GA Review
editGA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:2009 Palma Nova bombing/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it reasonably well written?
- Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
- A. References to sources:
- B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
- C. No original research:
- A. References to sources:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. Major aspects:
- B. Focused:
- A. Major aspects:
- Is it neutral?
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- Is it stable?
- No edit wars, etc:
- No edit wars, etc:
- Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
- A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Looks good!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)