Talk:Pullapää crisis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Pullapää crisis is part of the WikiProject Estonia, a project to maintain and expand Estonia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
Pullapää crisis 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: October 9, 2007 |
[edit] Concerns regarding the date of conviction
Based on various sources, it seems reliable that on 26 November 1993, Kommer was arrested, and his imprisonment was counted from that day. However, I am unsure that this was the day of his conviction, as several investigative procedures were performed later. I have not yet found a proper date of conviction, and although Postimees claims this was also the day of conviction, I suspect it is erroneously reporting the day of arrest as the day of conviction. Digwuren 01:23, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Failed "good article" nomination
This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of October 9, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:
- 1. Well written?:
The prose is mostly not very good. It suffers from redundancies ("influenced by a foreign power or foreign powers"), inappropriate colloquialisms ("announced they'd 'withdraw'") and poor syntax ("Made, nor any other politician (of 1993) has never been officially charged"), among other faults. Moreover, the article is difficult to understand for non-Estonian readers because it lacks the necessary context in the introduction: why was this event historically or politically significant? - 2. Factually accurate?: Unverifiable, because the article has only two (newspaper) sources, which are not cited inline. For an article that portrays the actions of living politicians unfavorably (see WP:BLP), that poor level of sourcing is unacceptable. Also, some sources at least should be in English.
- 3. Broad in coverage?: Cannot be ascertained because of the lack of sources (see above).
- 4. Neutral point of view?: Cannot be ascertained because of the lack of sources (see above). But we can't really have a section of "analysis" (whose analysis?) without any attribution (see WP:NOR).
- 5. Article stability?
A recent translation. - 6. Images?: The article has no images. (We don't have images of at least some of the people involved?)
When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a Good article reassessment. Thank you for your work so far. — Sandstein 12:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
