Talk:Cyprus Confidential

Feedback from New Page Review process
I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: This article could use some work but it's a good enough state to pass the new page review process. If someone could pull in more secondary coverage of the investigation that would help this article tremendously!

Philipnelson99 (talk) 04:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I removed the template because the ICIJ sources arent primary or breaking but agree need moer cites from other sources
 * I did not know what template to put instead and if someone reverts me I wont argue but please tell me why Im wrong so I dont make mistake again next year Softlem (talk) 11:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I looked for another template and read WP:Party_and_person again and was confused so I did a self revert until @Philipnelson99 or a different editor can reply Softlem (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * My line of thinking when saying "secondary sources" was sources that have covered the fallout from the release of Cyprus Confidential. There are a few sources in the article now. @Softlemonades Does that makes sense? Philipnelson99 (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * @Philipnelson99 It does thanks. Im going to move it to Response as a section template to clarify Softlem (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)