Jump to content

Talk:Rumsfeld Commission

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleRumsfeld Commission has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society 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.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 30, 2006Good article nomineeListed
January 31, 2010Good article reassessmentKept
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on November 2, 2006.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ...that the Rumsfeld Commission is considered by some foreign policy analysts to be the basis for the term "axis of evil", used by President George W. Bush in his 2002 State of the Union Address?
Current status: Good article

GA nom on HOLD for 7 days

[edit]
  • This article provides a decent quick-look at the topic. This topic deserves a much larger article. However, for the purposes of GA, it's OK to have a "broad overviews of a large topic"
  • I couldn't help but come away with the feeling that the critics' position was underrepresented; which raises significant POV questions. Some quotes from prominent critics would be welcome. The "Aftermath" section seems to thin even for a "broad overview."
  • Some sections were very list-like. You might be able to justify that, based on the "broad overview" nature of the article. However, it would help the article if you could improve this aspect.
  • A large amount of this material came from one source; this raises further questions about how broad the article's coverage is, and how well-referenced the article is. MORE SOURCES would be highly welcome.

I'm putting this article's GA nom on Hold for 7 days.

Drop me a line if you have any q's. --Ling.Nut 11:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again,
Before the 7 day period expires, I hope someone will take the time to discuss or address my referencing and NPOV concerns. I'm quite open to persuasion that my NPOV concerns are unfounded. In fact, I welcome such discussion. I honestly would regret having to fail the GA nom of an article simply because my concerns were unaddressed — and that would be even more regrettable if my concerns were unfounded. :-)
  • Question: What is NIE?
  • What does "compartmentalization of intelligence" mean?
Thanks --Ling.Nut 04:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your helpful comments. I have cleared up the NIE thing (it stands for National Intelligence Estimate and written a footnote for the "compartmentalization" line. I have also two sentences to the aftermath section; one explains the critics side that the report described what could and not what would happen; the other is the reaction of a more moderate group. I agree with most of your comments but I don't have much time now to do a full-scale expansion of the article. I would be happy if it became GA, but if you still have doubts, I can always renominate it at a later time. Thanks, Joshdboz 02:07, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really hope you'll find time to expand this; it's an important topic. PASS.--Ling.Nut 02:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS We just had a long hullaballoo over passing an article that relied too heavily on one source; you benefited from that discussion. However, I humbly but STRONGLY request that you find more sources! --Ling.Nut 02:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment

[edit]
This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Starting GA reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps process. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Projects and major contributors have been notified. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria

[edit]
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    Well written, I made some copy-edits to satisfy these requirements.

#:: I feel that the lead should be expanded somewhat to fully summarise the article as per WP:LEAD

  1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

#:: One dead link (ref #21 [1]) has been tagged.

  1. One statement: North Korea launched their Taepodong-1, modeled on the Scud missile highlighted in the report, on August 31 in what they described as a satellite launch. However, US intelligence determined the attempt was a failure. needs a citation.
    It would be helpful to have an EL to the actual report, which I assume is available on-line, this is not a GA requirement however.
    I assume good faith for off-line sources.
    Other references check out and are WP:RS
  2. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  3. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  4. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  5. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
    OK
  6. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
  7. :On hold for seven days for above issues to be addressed. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC) [reply]
    OK, just the lead to be addressed, as per above. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, keep GA status, thanks for the hard work that has gone into this. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the constructive critique! I'm sorry not to have kept this more updated since it was created. So far I believe I addressed many of the major things you noted; over the coming days I'll see what more can be done (will add cite templates all around), and I'll try to get a hold of the main book source to see if I missed anything from first round. Joshdboz (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Commission to Assess the Ballistic Missile Threat to the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:57, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rumsfeld_Commission&oldid=1204116324"