Talk:European Law Students' Association

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European Law Students' Association. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120917141858/http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N98/241/85/PDF/N9824185.pdf?OpenElement to http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N98/241/85/PDF/N9824185.pdf?OpenElement

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:58, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed 'Verifiable and Neutral' template
This article was nominated for deletion, and because of that I took some time to clean this article up. I also included a lot more references, and I tried to use independent third party references as much as possible. For instance, as regards ELSA's status with various international organizations I found independent third party sources for almost all of them and included them in the references. Still, the article refers to the elsa.org website more than I would like but unfortunately this seems in most cases to be the only option. However, whenever statements are made about their number of members and presence in number of countries I have tried to made clear that this is according to their own statements.

In my view, this article has come a long way in terms of neutral point of view and third party verification so I am taking the liberty to remove the 'Verifiable and neutral' banner. If anyone disagrees I am happy to discuss and help improve the article so it finally adheres to Wikipedia's standards. Vunzmstr (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry, I hadn't seen this message. The article has recently been edited by who appears to be an improperly disclosed paid editor, and the article still relies far too much on primary sources. For this reason, the article now has a primary sources tag that seems to be justified even after all your welcome and helpful improvements. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:49, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Who on earth would pay to have this article edited? Which edits are you referring to? Vunzmstr (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2020 (UTC)