Talk:Hands Off Venezuela

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 July 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Hands Off Venezuela was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. Reviewed version: August 18, 2006

[edit] Dubious Sources: From WP:RS

"Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." [1] Morton devonshire 00:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

This organisation is real. It has several thousand members in the UK, including several members of parliament, including John McDonnell, MP, has been mentioned in parliament (EDM 487) and has been recognised by the President of Venezuela [2]. It is real and notable. However, the page does need to be better written and better wikified. I will try to find some time to do this soon. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 18, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: This was not a major source of concern for me, but is this an organization or a campaign? First sentence says the former, the following the latter. Moreover, the first two paragraphs are actually both about the founding of the organization and its goals, so it is a bit mixed up and surely can be organized better. The logical flow is distorted here.

2. Factually accurate?: I have not checked that as there were other major reasons to fail the article.

3. Broad in coverage?: I get a feeling of it being rather superficial and "stubby". I believe that if it is so notable, there can be more said about it.

4. Neutral point of view?: This is my biggest concern. The first paragraph calls Chavez's actions "progressive social and democratic reforms". This is what the organization believes in, WP needs a more balanced and NPOV wording, especially on such controversial topics. Furthermore listing "successes" etc. makes it sound quite imbalanced - some distance to the organization is needed! I also believe this organization is highly controversial, but no word on the opponents, their views or even actually the fact that it might be controversial appears in it.

5. Article stability? Does not seem a concern to me.

6. Images?: The current, very short, article is just stuffed with them, they aren't formatted too nicely too. I agree the logo is a good thing to present in the article, but is this garish one the only version? I would much recommend getting one not superimposed over a crowd, as simple as can be.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. My overall impression is that this article is quite underdeveloped as of now, and quite a lot of work could still be done. --Bravada, talk - 02:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)