Talk:US - India nuclear deal sent for US Congress ratification

PS: Is proliferator a word? —Calebrw (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Excess sources
The sources section should only use sources which are used in the article's creation. They should be sorted with the newest at the top. I have removed two totally unrelated sources. This in itself is a non-NPOV bias to list items such as allegations of China testing nuclear technology for Pakistan when the article has nothing to do with Pakistan. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Copyright
I have no reason to believe the original contributor has violated copyright (unless there's too big a section copied from somewhere), so while that is skipped on the above review I think it is okay. A key progress point would be to trim back to the used sources to make checking an easier process. --Brian McNeil / talk 09:54, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV issues
Removed references as well as the sources indicating transfer of nuclear weapon technology by China to Pakistan and North Korea.--Tharikrish (talk) 18:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review 3

 * The article has not come up in the main page. Why? -- Tharikrish (talk) 09:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The edits weren't sighted, it's fixed now. Anonymous101talk 09:36, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Title
Without commenting on the sound of it in gelera, shouldn't it be "sent TO Congress FOR ratification" ? 68.39.174.238 23:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)