This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MagazinesWikipedia:WikiProject MagazinesTemplate:WikiProject Magazinesmagazine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SocialismWikipedia:WikiProject SocialismTemplate:WikiProject Socialismsocialism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism articles
The article needs a complete checkup. It looks impressively well-sourced. However, I just checked the references given with just one relatively minor event and none of them even mentioned Roar Magazine. Some other links are dead and there are also links to Twitter supposedly supporting the statement that its articles have been "picked up" by WikiLeaks. Just a tweet with a link to an article in Roar is, of course, something much more trivial. Given that every reference I have checked just for now fails, I would expect that many more of them will fail closer inspection. Similarly, the claim that Roar "helped to break the story of the LSE-Gaddafi affair" is only supported by a reference to the magazine itself. Seeing all these things in just a cursory inspection, I'm starting to think that this magazine may, in fact, not even meet our minimum notability requirements for inclusion on WP. I would urge those who know this journal and have worked on this article, to meticulously check the references, remove (or even better, replace) those that do not substantiate the claims made here and remove any claims that cannot be reliably sourced. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:59, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be accurate to put "Left wing to Far Left" in the description of their political perspective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.4.238.222 (talk) 19:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
