Talk:Chicago approves new handgun regulations

Review of revision 1053993 [Passed]

Revision 1053993 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1053993 of this article has been reviewed by C628 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 02:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Looks good to me. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Bias problem

This article is way, way too biased toward one side in its present state. There needs to be more information and quotes from dissenters of the ban. The article needs written in a way so as it presents both sides equally, not just shunning those who argue against the law. WN:NPOV, people. -- M (^speak/_spoken) 04:23, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no. An article which presents information is not biased, even if there is an alternative view point which is not presented. That would be akin to saying an article about research into the harms caused by abortion must present pro-choice information to be NPOV. NPOV is preserved if an article does not advocate, avoids interpretation of the facts or ascribing motives, and steadfastly fails to make value judgments. - Amgine | ^t 04:39, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Amgine here. This article maintains Wikinews' NPOV policy. 75.72.251.229 (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, that was me. Calebrw (talk) 07:53, 4 July 2010 (UTC)