Talk:U.S. military denies reports helicopter opened fire on Libyan civilians during rescue mission

Review of revision 1200011 [Passed]

Revision 1200011 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Decent article. It contains pretty much everything that is currently known 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 1200011 of this article has been reviewed by Gopher65 (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 21:10, 22 March 2011 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Decent article. It contains pretty much everything that is currently known 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.

EP

{{editprotected}} The V-22 Osprey is not technically a Helicopter. It is a tilt-rotor aircraft. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell-Boeing_V-22_Osprey —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tadpole256 (talk • contribs)

Is Wikipedia a reliable source? I doubt it. (haven't clicked that link to even see if the "not an helicopter" claim is sourced by someone else) Diego Grez ^{return fire} 20:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just to clear up the question about Wikiepdia: No, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. There's absolutely no question of that. Wikipedia says that Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Pi zero (talk) 20:36, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Request Proper Review

{{editprotected}} I would like to request a proper review of the mistake made above. The title needs to be fixed. An Osprey is not a helicopter. The word "aircraft" is more correct. Tadpole256 (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• Declined. You are quite correct. The Osprey is not, technically, a helicopter. However, the article is pure synthesis and the sources call it a helicopter. This is an "interesting" edge-case for a correction template, but the title shouldn't be changed. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:43, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

• That is a reason I can begrudgingly accept, only because the article is apparently pure synthesis. But that makes me wonder how it got published, does that not violate the copy write rules? Also, should we not strive to be better than other news sources? Tadpole256 (talk) 20:47, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the sources should have been shot down; live feeds are baaad because, when the reviewer looks, what the author saw is gone. And, blogs - even on respectable newspaper sites - should ideally be avoided. I fully agree we should strive to be better than other sources, and not dumb-down. That's why I'm saying it is an "interesting" edge case for a correction notice. I'd not put it at the top, but at the bottom of the article as a sort-of 'infopoint'. Would you care to suggest a very concise text to clarify what the Osprey is? Ideally sourced to a US Gov or one of the manufacturers' websites? --Brian McNeil / ^talk 20:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)