This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Raindance article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Operation Raindance appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 January 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have some issues with the neutrality of the proposed DYK. I have not gone through it in great detail, but examples include;
Sorry but that sounds rather non-neutral (not quite 'encyclopaedic) - it seems to be giving an interpretation on the facts, not just stating them.
I also highlight faced with the looming possibility because the phrase is more descriptive than encyclopaedic; I hope you see what I mean. It is better (in the encyclopaiedia) to just state facts, and let readers draw their own conclusion about their significance; not to offer interpretation.
Igor the bunny ( talk) 21:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
This plaint seems to be aimed at the article, not the actual DYK. I have returned to the article to tweak it a bit, in the interests of NPOV. However, if an event has never previously occurred, is it not unprecedented? Georgejdorner ( talk) 23:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Operation Raindance article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
A fact from Operation Raindance appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 14 January 2015 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have some issues with the neutrality of the proposed DYK. I have not gone through it in great detail, but examples include;
Sorry but that sounds rather non-neutral (not quite 'encyclopaedic) - it seems to be giving an interpretation on the facts, not just stating them.
I also highlight faced with the looming possibility because the phrase is more descriptive than encyclopaedic; I hope you see what I mean. It is better (in the encyclopaiedia) to just state facts, and let readers draw their own conclusion about their significance; not to offer interpretation.
Igor the bunny ( talk) 21:12, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
This plaint seems to be aimed at the article, not the actual DYK. I have returned to the article to tweak it a bit, in the interests of NPOV. However, if an event has never previously occurred, is it not unprecedented? Georgejdorner ( talk) 23:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)