Talk:George W. Bush shoeing incident

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Orphaned references in Bush shoeing incident[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Bush shoeing incident's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "AZ081216":

  • From Muntadhar al-Zaidi: "Shoe-thrower rejects Saddam defender, many other offers". Trend News Agency. 2008-12-17. Retrieved 2008-12-17.
  • From Khalil al-Duleimi: "Shoe-thrower rejects Saddam defender, many other offers". Trend News Agency. 2008-12-17. Retrieved 2008-12-17. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Bush shoeing incident. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bush shoeing incident. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bush shoeing incident/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wasted Time R (talk · contribs) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


I will be reviewing this nomination. Wasted Time R (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    The prose is substandard for GA and needs considerable work. There are two many short choppy sentences and paragraphs and too many sentences that begin "In <some date>, ...". Especially in the "Reaction" and "Timeline" sections, the article ends up being a list of events and actions and quotes without any thematic narrative cohesion or sense of relative importance. These parts of the article need a complete reexamination and reworking to better represent the material in clear and concise manner. In addition, the unadorned bullet point list in the "Timeline" section is inappropriate for this kind of article and should be rendered in prose. It isn't clear if the book and the play whose titles begin with The Last Salute are two versions of the same thing, or different things, and titles of books and plays should be in italics not double quotes. Some of the other formatting in the article needs fixing as well. There are repeat links, such as to George W. Bush, and unnecessary links to well-known countries. Links such as National Portrait Gallery (United States) should be piped to hide the disambiguation phrase. The mentions of the online shoe-throwing games and the Letterman bit should be moved into the "Parodies" section.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Given the other issues with the article, I did not look closely at it for sourcing or copyvio issues. But there are at least two 'citation needed' flags in the article currently, when there should not be any for an article submitted to GAN.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Regarding covering major aspects, content additions to the article seem to have stopped around the end of the 2000s. What further reactions to the event have happened in the decade since then? Is the incident still talked about in either Iraq or the United States, or has it faded in popular consciousness? Bush mentioned the incident in his memoir Decision Points (around page 392), what did he say about it there? Has he said anything further about it, now that he has more perspective on it? What if anything has al-Zaidi said about it in recent years? Regarding the article being focused, there is too much detail in places. There is an article on Muntadhar al-Zaidi and some of the detail in this article about him and his injuries and his trial etc might be better covered there. Actually, I get the impression that a lot of the material in this article may have been originally added to the al-Zaidi article, as the events happened, and later imported into this article. Some kind of plan needs to be adopted regarding what material goes where, and then the material should be made more concise with the important points made more clear.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Nothing jumped out at me regarding neutrality, but given the other issues with the article, I did not look closely at this aspect.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The substandard prose and the organization of the material are major issues that will take considerable time and effort to correct. So this nomination is a fail.

Iraq uses Day/Month/Year format and this article should too.[edit]

This was not an American incident purely because the victim (or potential victim) was American. Asperthrow (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_W._Bush_shoeing_incident&oldid=1207388033"