Talk:Battle of Jilib

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Jilib article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	Battle of Jilib has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 23, 2007 Good article nominee Listed October 27, 2007 Good article reassessment Kept Current Status: Good article

	This article is part of WikiProject Ethiopia, an attempt to co-ordinate articles related to Ethiopia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Mid	This article is rated as being of medium importance.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: Associated task forces (nations and regions): African military history task force

[edit] And just like that

They had a "tactical mutiny" [1] ~Rangeley (talk) 04:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations / Sources (Links)

Please do not link to news.yahoo.com and to articles issued by Reuters (also at alertnet.org) or the Associated Press. They're existing only two or three months and then disappear and are therefore worthless, except for the claim of making an edit. The same problem is with newspaper websites which are using the original newsfeed of Reuters or AP, e.g. Washington Post (partly, can be easily recognised by the AP/Reuters logo near the headline), Forbes, CBS, partly CNN.

Safe links newspapers and other media outlets which usually publish AP/Reuters news without editing but keep them include BBC News (news.bbc.co.uk) Al Jazeera, Jerusalem Post, Independent Online (South Africa). In the cases in which the original title of the news is still available a Google advanced search with the exact phrase might be successfull to find and restore those links. Links to BBC News articles are safe, they stay forever. Links to Washington Post articles which had been published in the print edition are also safe and can be recognised by date and pagenumber near the title and byline of the article! --213.155.224.232 19:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

What is Wikipedia's policy on using Voice of America as a reference? As you may know, Voice of America is officially controlled by the U.S. Government and therefore has questionable objectivity and reliability. --75.73.22.166 04:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The bar of what is a reliable source is a very low one -- it's primary (& almost sole) purpose is to exclude fringe ideas & wingnut ravings that don't squarely fall under WP:NOR. In a nutshell, the Wikipedia guideline says "don't quote sources no one would quote with a straight face." One could raise the bar -- & doubtlessly everyone would agree that to do so would be a good thing -- but any wording that would do so ends up giving people would disagree with a tool to exclude the sources you agree with (& vice versa). So the Voice of America is considered a reliable source -- as is al-Jazeera, the Walta Information Center & many other sources. -- llywrch 01:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Sweeps Review: Pass

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. Although the article is short, it is well-sourced. If you can, continue to expand the article with any available information that can be sourced. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have edited the article history to reflect this review. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 07:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC)