Talk:Remaining US troops exit Iraq

Review of revision 1344265 [Not ready]

Revision 1344265 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: There are several passages with dubious word choices, but I'm not even tackling them just at this moment. (Apologies; it's midnight my time.) This has a neutrality problem. It captures the VOA spin on the war, which includes subtleties (such as the use of verb "show" in the last paragraph, implying definiteness) as well as the dearth of mention that the war was controversial — the controversy being only mentioned by VOA way at the end, obliquely through saying Obama had opposed the war when he ran for office (no hint that he'd opposed it before that). The BBC only has one more mention of the controversy, that I noticed, in saying that Obama acknowledged it in his speech at Fort Bragg — a passage that currently has verification problems. That sentence, starting "In a speech" (end of sixth paragraph), appears in a paragraph context that makes it sound as if the speech were at Obama's meeting with Maliki (btw: alongside?), and then also seems to say Obama acknowledged controversy over continued counter-terrorism presence, whereas the BBC source seems to say he acknowledged a much broader controversy about the war. The two sources are less independent that they ought to be; it's pretty clear BBC used VOA, and for purposes of neutrality I'd have looked in any case for a source that isn't US or UK. Keeping in mind that the BBC source (unlike VOA) is under copyright: The two sentences starting "The US federal government had wished" (second and third sentences of fifth paragraph) could be made structurally further away from the BBC source sentence they paraphrase. The fourth paragraph could be further from BBC as well, looking at the extended BBC block it follows. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1344265 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 05:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: See below. NPOV: Not ready: See below. Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: There are several passages with dubious word choices, but I'm not even tackling them just at this moment. (Apologies; it's midnight my time.) This has a neutrality problem. It captures the VOA spin on the war, which includes subtleties (such as the use of verb "show" in the last paragraph, implying definiteness) as well as the dearth of mention that the war was controversial — the controversy being only mentioned by VOA way at the end, obliquely through saying Obama had opposed the war when he ran for office (no hint that he'd opposed it before that). The BBC only has one more mention of the controversy, that I noticed, in saying that Obama acknowledged it in his speech at Fort Bragg — a passage that currently has verification problems. That sentence, starting "In a speech" (end of sixth paragraph), appears in a paragraph context that makes it sound as if the speech were at Obama's meeting with Maliki (btw: alongside?), and then also seems to say Obama acknowledged controversy over continued counter-terrorism presence, whereas the BBC source seems to say he acknowledged a much broader controversy about the war. The two sources are less independent that they ought to be; it's pretty clear BBC used VOA, and for purposes of neutrality I'd have looked in any case for a source that isn't US or UK. Keeping in mind that the BBC source (unlike VOA) is under copyright: The two sentences starting "The US federal government had wished" (second and third sentences of fifth paragraph) could be made structurally further away from the BBC source sentence they paraphrase. The fourth paragraph could be further from BBC as well, looking at the extended BBC block it follows. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

• The above comments are precisely why I've had 'issues' in the past with use of VoA; they are most definitely not neutral. VoA is 100% funded by the US State Department, their material is not supposed to be published/available within the continental US. Why? Because, to be harsh, they're the propaganda department. Anything they publish on something as contentious and controversial as the Iraq War should not be used as a source here. My advise would be to completely remove all VoA material from this, and then pick a source or two that have not been 'friends' to the US government throughout the Iraq War. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 11:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Review of revision 1344355 [Not ready]

Revision 1344355 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Insufficient done to counter systemic bias introduced through use of VoA as a base for this article Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Due to using VoA as a base for this article has introduced systemic bias, the copyedits carried out do not introduce a suitable balancing viewpoint to counter this such to pass on NPOV. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Revision 1344355 of this article has been reviewed by Brian McNeil (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 11:21, 19 December 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Newsworthiness: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Verifiability: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. NPOV: Not ready: Insufficient done to counter systemic bias introduced through use of VoA as a base for this article Style: Not reviewed. Please address other issues. Comments by reviewer: Due to using VoA as a base for this article has introduced systemic bias, the copyedits carried out do not introduce a suitable balancing viewpoint to counter this such to pass on NPOV. Questions about the above? Ask. If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.

Review of revision 1346238 [Passed]

Revision 1346238 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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 1346238 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 16:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. 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.