Misplaced Pages

Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories/to do: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:54, 16 January 2007 editTimtrent (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers131,498 edits one task down← Previous edit Latest revision as of 20:02, 11 September 2010 edit undoJblossom (talk | contribs)99 edits Added comment about article lacking reference to citation of physical evidence 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 8: Line 8:
*The ref for ''In response to concerns about the destruction of evidence, W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team on the site, stated, that "The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples."'' at http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm does not lead to the expected story *The ref for ''In response to concerns about the destruction of evidence, W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team on the site, stated, that "The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples."'' at http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm does not lead to the expected story


*This article makes no reference to the only cited scientific examination of actual materials for the presence of explosive materials claimed by supporters of the controlled demolition theory. That study by Harrit et al. found the presence of unexploded nanothermite materials.
|expand=

|expand=*Fix this reference: ''Griffin, David Ray in The Hidden History (will fix ref).''
|disambiguation= |disambiguation=
|stubs= |stubs=
Line 16: Line 18:
|other=*Continually monitor the Peer Review feedback, discuss it and incorporate the agreed items, making sure feedback is left on the Peer Review page |other=*Continually monitor the Peer Review feedback, discuss it and incorporate the agreed items, making sure feedback is left on the Peer Review page
*Examine ] and determine whether they fit and where they fit. and add them if appropriate, giving feedback on completion *Examine ] and determine whether they fit and where they fit. and add them if appropriate, giving feedback on completion
*From Peer Review: Discuss ''Rebuttals should be close to the corresponding arguments, not in a ghetto near the bottom of the article.'', build consensus and implement consensus view.
}} }}

Latest revision as of 20:02, 11 September 2010


 Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Cleanup : *The citations have got out of hand. The various variations of the {{cite}} template need to be used, but there seem to be a great number which are imperfectly cited. Please pick up any that simply show as a url and visit (eg) cite web to determine the most appropriate template to put inside the ref. This is reinforced by the most recent Peer Review comment about consistency. The full set of templates are at Misplaced Pages:Citation templates
    • The ref for In response to concerns about the destruction of evidence, W. Gene Corley, head of the Building Performance Assessment Team on the site, stated, that "The team has had full access to the scrap yards and to the site and has been able to obtain numerous samples." at http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/full02/mar06/corley.htm does not lead to the expected story
    • This article makes no reference to the only cited scientific examination of actual materials for the presence of explosive materials claimed by supporters of the controlled demolition theory. That study by Harrit et al. found the presence of unexploded nanothermite materials.
    • Copyedit : * From Peer Review One thing I would note is that grammar and phrasing are very important for "Featured Articles." I noticed a few phrases in the introduction that were awkward at best. Example: "The collapse of 7 World Trade Center (not hit by any plane)..." In this case, the interjection would flow much better if it was "which was not hit by a plane", or perhaps it should be removed entirely. The whole article should be examined for tone by a seasoned editor.
    • Expand : *Fix this reference: Griffin, David Ray in The Hidden History (will fix ref).
    • Other : *Continually monitor the Peer Review feedback, discuss it and incorporate the agreed items, making sure feedback is left on the Peer Review page
    • Examine these references and determine whether they fit and where they fit. and add them if appropriate, giving feedback on completion