Jump to content

Talk:Lopota incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposing to rename the article

[edit]

Possibly Special operation in Lopota Gorge. --Niemti (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OPERATION HIGHLY DISPUTED

[edit]

Following the Georgian national coursts investigaion about that event, lately information were leaked which by eye withness accounts indicate the entire event was staged by the former Georgian government resulting in the withnessed execution of 2 ministry of internal affairs and one armed forces elite unit personnel togheter with 11 individuals of a supposed armed group, supposedly crossing the Dagestani-Georgian border. This article should be tagged controversial or completly removed until the final results of the new Government lead investigations come to a final. The eye withness accounts include local civilians, aswell as a surviving member of the supposed terrorist group and several statements from high officials of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, special services. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 07:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linkz plz. --Niemti (talk) 09:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The sources here are not credible anymore. I guess as soon as investigations are done one can add links, till then not. TheMightyGeneral (talk) 12:23, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LINKZ PLZ. (WP:V) --Niemti (talk) 12:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Don't like repeating myself to embarass others but your capital letters provoke me: "I guess as soon as investigations are done one can add links...." TheMightyGeneral (talk) 18:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not "one", but you. Provide sources for your strange claims (of "execution", including of the Georgian troops no less). The article is very well sourced and absolutely neutral, as opposed to your "revelations" above, and also as opposed to your original article, which I'll also say was blindly following the government line - and now you try to make a weird 180-turn apparently. I also wonder if you even bothered to read it. --Niemti (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh. --Niemti (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Lopota Gorge hostage crisis/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: North8000 (talk · contribs) 23:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a review of this article. North8000 (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the nominator is currently blocked. He won't be able to respond for at least another week.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's good to know. Niemti, with you being both the main editor and the nominator, I think that you'd be the main one to converse on this. No hurry....when you get back and get a chance. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:48, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, Niemti has now been blocked from participating in the GAN/GAR of any article, so he can no longer provide input at this review. Dana boomer (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. I'll have to proceed accordingly. North8000 (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Review discussion

[edit]

Article has no images. Would it be feasible (vs. very difficult) to add an image or two? Maybe a map? (which would also make it easier to absorb/understand)? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given the situation, I can't/shouldn't post anything that requires a conversation. So I need to post it differently. Article has no images and I think it reasonable to expect that it have at least one image. Even just a map of Georgia and bordering countries would be a big help. North8000 (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Under media theories, a person referred to as Rustan appears to be Ruslan. Suggest clarification....are they both correct names for the same person?

The lead is not really a summary of the article. Most of it is some specialized facts. North8000 (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status summary

[edit]

The authors (and particularly Niemti) have done a large amount of excellent work on this article! And it is on a very encyclopedia topic that would probably not otherwise be covered. So it is a very nice addition to Wikipedia. During the review process I fixed a number of small things (such as grammar) that were limited based on my lack of expertise in this field. Subsequently, it was noted that the main author and nominator was at first blocked, and then later restricted from participating in any GA review. I don't know where that is, or the details of it, but it appears to be correct. I have avoided approaching them as such could push them into a violation of the restriction. IMO, two of the open items discussed above (images and the lead) are significant enough that I could not correctly pass this as a good article with either of them unresolved. With my lack of expertise and sources on the topic, I could not fix those things myself without embarking on a larger learning and searching process. I'm going to leave this open another week and if those are not resolved I'll be forced to non-pass this article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per above I have waited a week and per above I am forced to non-pass this article. Per above, the authors (and particularly Niemti) have done a large amount of excellent work on this article! And it is on a very encyclopedia topic that would probably not otherwise be covered. And so I hope that this can become a GA Good article in the future. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:05, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA criteria final checklist

[edit]

Well-written

Factually accurate and verifiable

Broad in its coverage

Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each

  • Meets this criteria. Article appears to be SO cautious in this respect (avoiding summaries) that at times it makes it hard to read/absorb. North8000 (talk) 23:52, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute

Illustrated, if possible, by images

  • Per above, I think that it is reasonable to expect at least one image (even a map) and so it does not currently meet this criteria. North8000 (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Result

[edit]

See "status summary" section above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Lopota incident. 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 11:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Lopota_incident&oldid=1208583849"