Talk:US - India nuclear deal sent for US Congress ratification

Revision 690519 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Not checked due to the below issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: =Not checked due to the below issues. NPOV: Not ready: This is article doesn't seem to be written from a neutral point of view, seems pro-Indian. Style: Not ready: Needs to be rewritten in proper style. Comments by reviewer: Could use a rewrite. PS: when is today? 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 690519 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 01:30, 10 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Not ready: Not checked due to the below issues. Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Not ready: =Not checked due to the below issues. NPOV: Not ready: This is article doesn't seem to be written from a neutral point of view, seems pro-Indian. Style: Not ready: Needs to be rewritten in proper style. Comments by reviewer: Could use a rewrite. PS: when is today? 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.

PS: Is proliferator a word? —Calebrw (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Excess sources

The sources section should only use sources which are used in the article's creation. They should be sorted with the newest at the top. I have removed two totally unrelated sources. This in itself is a non-NPOV bias to list items such as allegations of China testing nuclear technology for Pakistan when the article has nothing to do with Pakistan. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright

I have no reason to believe the original contributor has violated copyright (unless there's too big a section copied from somewhere), so while that is skipped on the above review I think it is okay. A key progress point would be to trim back to the used sources to make checking an easier process. --Brian McNeil / ^talk 09:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review #2

Revision [1] of this article has been reviewed by WNewsReporter (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: I've seen a few run-on sentences in the article which should be changed before publishing. Also, some of the wording sounds a bit out of place and could possibly be mistaken for bias. This needs to be addressed. Comments by reviewer: This was a tough choice, but I think it's better that these minor problems be corrected now rather than after publishing. A few more edits and this article will be good to go. WNewsReporter (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 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 [2] of this article has been reviewed by WNewsReporter (talk · contribs) and found not ready at 16:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Not ready: I've seen a few run-on sentences in the article which should be changed before publishing. Also, some of the wording sounds a bit out of place and could possibly be mistaken for bias. This needs to be addressed. Comments by reviewer: This was a tough choice, but I think it's better that these minor problems be corrected now rather than after publishing. A few more edits and this article will be good to go. WNewsReporter (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC) 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.

NPOV issues

Removed references as well as the sources indicating transfer of nuclear weapon technology by China to Pakistan and North Korea.--Tharikrish (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review 3

Revision 692100 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Much better now. 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 692100 of this article has been reviewed by Calebrw (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 22:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: Much better now. 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.

The article has not come up in the main page. Why? -- Tharikrish (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The edits weren't sighted, it's fixed now. Anonymous101^talk 09:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Title

Without commenting on the sound of it in gelera, shouldn't it be "sent TO Congress FOR ratification" ? 68.39.174.238 23:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)