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 editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:30, 4 January 2007 editTimtrent (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers131,498 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit Revision as of 09:20, 5 January 2007 edit undoTimtrent (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers131,498 edits task from Peer ReviewNext edit →
Line 7: Line 7:


*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

*''Also I think this sentence is too suggestive and is in need of some neutrality: "Jones concentrates on the physical implausibility of the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition."'' from Peer Review. Please consider, edit as needed, and remove from here. When complete please ensure thsi is acknowledged on the Peer Review page.


|expand= |expand=

Revision as of 09:20, 5 January 2007


 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.
    • 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
    • Also I think this sentence is too suggestive and is in need of some neutrality: "Jones concentrates on the physical implausibility of the official explanation and on aspects of the collapses that seem easier to explain with controlled demolition." from Peer Review. Please consider, edit as needed, and remove from here. When complete please ensure thsi is acknowledged on the Peer Review page.
    • Other : Continually monitor the Peer Review feedback, discuss it and incorporate the agreed items