Wikipedia:Peer review/9/11 conspiracy theories/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

9/11 conspiracy theories[edit]

I worked on 9/11 conspiracy theories: made some significant changes into the article, rewrited some stuff for improved readability and removal of NPOV, added some data, removed what I found irrelevant. Main focus went to WTC 7 section, From unofficial explanations to conspiracy theory section and slightly reorganizing sections. I'd like this work to be reviewed, to be sure I'm working in the right direction, and actually improved the article quality. All comments, directions for further improvement and contributions to improve the overall quality of this article welcome. Izwalito 06:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • As per WP:V, the article requires references. (Note that External links are not references; if they were used as sources the section should be renamed references.) Quotes need citations, (as in inline citations- WP:FOOTNOTE- not inline external links). Since there are 126 external links in the article, I'll try to help out by converting them all to footnotes (but without citation information- that has to be done with WP:CITE) AndyZ t 13:26, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I went through and mass converted the 157 inline external links into footnotes (hopefully I didn't mess anything up in the process). Now they need to be cited properly according to WP:CITE... AndyZ t 14:07, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Wow - what huge article. If you ever want to get this featured you should adhere to Wikipedia:Summary style to farm off much of the detail to daughter articles and articles on particular conspiracy theories. Even if FA is not what you are after, doing that will greatly improve the readability of this article. --mav 22:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At the moment I'm wondering if it wouldn't require less work to completely rewrite the article from scratch in order to meet quality standards than to try to clean it up. In its current state the article fails on several points: it features no reader friendly formatting, no clear and succinct global overview, no adequate source linking, contains some obsolete or irrelevant stuff that should be put in separate articles (the larry silverstein quote for example), and as you said it is big, certainly too big. Izwalito 18:00, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Izwalito,

As I'm sure you read my thoughts on the main talk page, I have since returned the WTC 7 section to a more organized and more summarized state. The edits you provided were lengthy and added very little to the understanding of the conspiracy theories in relation to Building Seven. The wording went from a smooth, fluid flow into a jagged, broken mix. The grammar as well as the sentence structure was remedial and difficult for the average reader to follow.

The repairs I made did include some of the newer additions, as well as a slightly different format from before. Keep in mind as you make adjustments to the article, the brevity necessary to keep a reader interested.--Doctor9 00:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't be too sure. I just came back to work more on this section to discover almost all my work has been edited out, with references and wikification gone. what you called returned and repairs seems more like a revert to me. I have now read your message on the talk page and answered it. I'm not gonna fight over this and instead will quote a certain Niccolo Machiavelli:
It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things. Because the innovator has for enemies all those who have done well under the old conditions, and lukewarm defenders in those who may do well under the new. This coolness arises partly from fear of the opponents, who have the laws on their side, and partly from the incredulity of men, who do not readily believe in new things until they have had a long experience of them.[1]
Izwalito 13:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess, terribly POV ("What Are They Hiding?" ??) and badly written ("It is indeed undeniable that large airplanes hit the twin towers as the event has been caught on video and widely broadcasted in mass media, the Pentagon attack is different, video of the attack are known to exist as they have been confiscated by FBI agents minutes after the explosion but have not been released to the public." ??). Quoting Machiavelli is irrelevant other than to suggest that you are driven by non-encyclopedic motivations. -- Jibal 18:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without mention of the videos the FBI Confiscated from the Sheraton Inn I do not see how this article could be considered factual. it is a known fact that the Sheraton Inn security cameras captured the entire attack. With the FBI withholding this valuable evidence it is clear that the murders that took place that day can never be fully understood. I am not saying it was a missle that hit the Pentagon, but I am saying that all physical evidence points to that "best guess." If the USA Government and Wiki wants to prove their innocence in this conspiracy then the Sheraton Inn must be mentioned prominantly in this Wiki and the US Govt must release the Sheraton Inn security camera video from 9/11, PERIOD. There is nothing more to discuss. my username is "isassexe" and I have edited this page on April 17, 2007 at 2:00 am

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/9/11_conspiracy_theories/archive1&oldid=191699057"