User talk:BRT01

TALK PAGE[edit]

Talk if you must but don't expect a speedy reply

Delisting Chernobyl Disaster[edit]

This is the posting I put on the review page prior to delisting the Chernobyl disaster from the Good articles page ...

Perhaps it is the recent 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl disaster that has seen massive editing on this page (That was the reason I looked it up) but I feel that the article no longer meets the criteria on multiple points. The article is no longer well written. There is a link from the subtitle 'The effects of the disaster' to another page for that subject but the debate on the effects still continues far down the original page. This leaves the coverage of the effects split over two pages leaving contributors to either update both or, as it is at present, update one leaving two different articles for teh same topic.

From that subtitle down I believe that the article rapidly goes downhill. I believe that it breaches the NPOV rule in that undue emphasis is placed on reports from one side of the debate (I'll let you decide) and arguments against the other side. There are studies cited which are not studies but little more than random phrases taken from foreign language news reports and the page is no longer stable with over 200 edits in five days. I have suggested a standardised way of presenting reports on the discussions page and await a reply. Could someone take a look and see if my concerns are justified BRT01 04:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I received one reply ...

I agree. Although some areas of this article get better and better, some are missing or somewhat misleading Natmaka 08:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the article fulfils the criteria for good article status and accordingly used my veto to remove that status on 7th May.