This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Exposé 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 |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from The Exposé appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 August 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The result was: promoted by
97198 (
talk) 07:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Created by Isi96 ( talk). Self-nominated at 00:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: Article is long enough, has adequate sourcing, and the hook is verifiable. However, the article has a bit too much close paraphrasingfor my liking. I also think that this article's hook could be better to be something like this:
This page relies heavily on one source, Logically, which seems to be a blog. Cdefm ( talk) 17:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Other sources for this page, in the main, are "fact check" articles. "Fact check" articles are opinion articles and not necessarily facts as admitted by Facebook in a court case. Most "fact check" articles are written by writers or bloggers and not experts. "Fact check" articles cannot be considered as credible sources for Wikipedia pages any more than blogs can be.
The more truth pushes through "the more fakeism is promoted" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:2D0B:5200:325:6AD3:FCD2:FF32 ( talk) 19:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I believe using the word conspiracy is inadquate as several cases have shown truth in much of the argumentaiton against the "public" narrative. Oxycotin is an example of people being labled "conspiracy" where it indeed deemed to be true what they said. Conspiracy is based on non-fact (according to Wiki), but several courtcases have proven that many of the things deemed as misleading Covid information, is indeed true. Also, who are deeming them false? The same media/organisations that deem the information misleading - which by itself consitute a problem. 93.161.218.211 ( talk) 15:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Exposé 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 |
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to
COVID-19, broadly construed, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from The Exposé appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 August 2022 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|
The result was: promoted by
97198 (
talk) 07:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
Created by Isi96 ( talk). Self-nominated at 00:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC).
General: Article is new enough and long enough |
---|
Policy: Article is sourced, neutral, and free of copyright problems |
---|
|
Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
---|
|
QPQ: None required. |
Overall: Article is long enough, has adequate sourcing, and the hook is verifiable. However, the article has a bit too much close paraphrasingfor my liking. I also think that this article's hook could be better to be something like this:
This page relies heavily on one source, Logically, which seems to be a blog. Cdefm ( talk) 17:30, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
Other sources for this page, in the main, are "fact check" articles. "Fact check" articles are opinion articles and not necessarily facts as admitted by Facebook in a court case. Most "fact check" articles are written by writers or bloggers and not experts. "Fact check" articles cannot be considered as credible sources for Wikipedia pages any more than blogs can be.
The more truth pushes through "the more fakeism is promoted" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:2D0B:5200:325:6AD3:FCD2:FF32 ( talk) 19:31, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I believe using the word conspiracy is inadquate as several cases have shown truth in much of the argumentaiton against the "public" narrative. Oxycotin is an example of people being labled "conspiracy" where it indeed deemed to be true what they said. Conspiracy is based on non-fact (according to Wiki), but several courtcases have proven that many of the things deemed as misleading Covid information, is indeed true. Also, who are deeming them false? The same media/organisations that deem the information misleading - which by itself consitute a problem. 93.161.218.211 ( talk) 15:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)