Talk:US army gives medical assistance to Iraq school

Is this article ok?
Sign below, please.

No
REASON

Improvement Tips

 * Some indication of the scale of the activity would be very nice. How many childen were seen by this assistance activity? How many army people were involved in this? That kind of numbers would give readers a better, though not necessarily precise, sense of the significance of this event. Tomos 21:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Good suggestion, I will try to find something. -- Carlosar 01:56, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I have added some numbers. -- Carlosar 02:45, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Is this a "neutral" article? It does not promote one side by suppressing the other side of a dispute. But it does promote a positive perception of the US army.  Is there any context or relevant event(s) that can be mentioned in the article to give readers a chance to notice that there are alternative views on US army in Iraq? This is the kind of issue I was wondering how to deal with (see Water_cooler). Tomos 21:18, 27 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I have written about this issue too in another place. I will take a look at Water Cooler and I will write something about it. -- Carlosar 00:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Maybe we need some policy or recomedantions(but not too much complicated) about avaliating POV issues. -- Carlosar 00:22, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Off course maybe it is possible keeping Wikinews with policies at minimum or without policies. Also you can argue against that. -- Carlosar 01:28, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is neutral because it is reporting a event which really happened. US is giving some assistance to Iraq people and this news must be reported. Several media usually does not cover the US work for Iraq reconstruction and I think this is an unfair and biased posture of them. -- Carlosar 02:01, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I think this article is important because it gives some balance in Wikinews. -- Carlosar 00:23, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I don't think the balance should be such that we have some articles biased in one direction and then some articles biased in the opposite direction, but rather so that all articles are unbiased and present a neutral view with points from all angles. - Apollyon 19:30, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I have put some comments at Water_cooler. Coverage tendencies can be resolved with scale and diversity of participants. This can resolve possible POV in coverage. But the struggle of different point of views or tendencies can lead to conspiracy theories and defamatory articles or propaganda(although I think propaganda is not so worst than the other two). Hence Wikinews may become NPOV but NPOV with a lot of conspiracy theories and defamatory articles. So we need to assure accuracy in the articles. Should these bad articles in your opinion be deleted? When? It is not a easy task, if you are too rigorous you can interpose a true article, if you are too tolerant you can endorse a fake article. Some people assessure some article is true, another people pledge the same article is fake. How do we resolve this? --Carlosar 01:56, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)