Talk:Zerai Deres

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
anticolonialism
?

Entry is a fake

Entry is a fake as stated and shown in https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discussione:Zerai_DeresPaolobon140 (talk) 19:28, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Paolobon140: The article have been totally rewritten, using solid and verificable sources. --Holapaco77 (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Zerai Deres. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 5 June 2024).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is
transcluded from Talk:Zerai Deres/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer:

talk · contribs) 23:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]


This article has significant issues which cause it to be far from meeting the GA standard at this time. Some of the statements (now flagged) have more citations than necessary, which impedes readability. The prose could use improvement, especially smoothing out the many one-sentence of very brief paragraphs into running prose. In addition, the language, in places, comes off as POV, such as "act of public devotion to an important symbol of his native country". The most significant issue is the many unreliable sources cited, such as an
apparently nonexistent YouTube channel (refs 22 and 23), the comments section of an online newspaper (31), a blog (37), a self-published website (53), a Facebook page used to prove the existence of the page's owner (57), a broken self-published website (40), and a slideshare presentation (50). Comments are based on this version of the article.

talk) 23:20, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
]