Talk:Hands Off Venezuela

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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.

Hands Off Venezuela was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
August 18, 2006	Good article nominee	Not listed

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 July 2006. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Venezuela Low‑importance

	Venezuela portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Venezuela, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Venezuela on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VenezuelaWikipedia:WikiProject VenezuelaTemplate:WikiProject VenezuelaVenezuela articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dubious Sources: From WP:RS[edit]

"Sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight... Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources. Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." [1] Morton devonshire 00:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This organisation is real. It has several thousand members in the UK, including several members of parliament, including John McDonnell, MP, has been mentioned in parliament (EDM 487) and has been recognised by the President of Venezuela [2]. It is real and notable. However, the page does need to be better written and better wikified. I will try to find some time to do this soon. Self-Described Seabhcán 09:48, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of August 18, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: This was not a major source of concern for me, but is this an organization or a campaign? First sentence says the former, the following the latter. Moreover, the first two paragraphs are actually both about the founding of the organization and its goals, so it is a bit mixed up and surely can be organized better. The logical flow is distorted here.

2. Factually accurate?: I have not checked that as there were other major reasons to fail the article.

3. Broad in coverage?: I get a feeling of it being rather superficial and "stubby". I believe that if it is so notable, there can be more said about it.

4. Neutral point of view?: This is my biggest concern. The first paragraph calls Chavez's actions "progressive social and democratic reforms". This is what the organization believes in, WP needs a more balanced and NPOV wording, especially on such controversial topics. Furthermore listing "successes" etc. makes it sound quite imbalanced - some distance to the organization is needed! I also believe this organization is highly controversial, but no word on the opponents, their views or even actually the fact that it might be controversial appears in it.

5. Article stability? Does not seem a concern to me.

6. Images?: The current, very short, article is just stuffed with them, they aren't formatted too nicely too. I agree the logo is a good thing to present in the article, but is this garish one the only version? I would much recommend getting one not superimposed over a crowd, as simple as can be.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. My overall impression is that this article is quite underdeveloped as of now, and quite a lot of work could still be done. --Bravada, talk - 02:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pioneer organisation (and article)[edit]

This pioneer organisation (and this, its corresponding article) ought to serve as examples for new sister organisations (and future articles), such as Hands Off Honduras. --AVM (talk) 15:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hands Off Venezuela. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051220222810/http://www.marxist.ca/hov_canada.htm to http://www.marxist.ca/hov_canada.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:01, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who funds this political lobby group?[edit]

It would be good to add some information about who is funding this political lobby group, with references. 50.221.225.231 (talk) 04:30, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]