Talk:Humanitarian protection/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 03:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not think that this article is close to meeting the Good Article criteria. It's not broad and doesn't mention major issues in humanitarian proctection including refugee resettlement and the relationship between humanitarian protection and human rights. It reads more like a start class article than a fully developed Good Article. The citations also need work. Ideally, the article would cite mostly scholarly works giving accounts of humanitarian protection, rather than primary sources from agencies that are directly involved in providing humanitarian protection. The Ferris source shouldn't be given in full on multiple occasions, instead use sfn or rp. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:29, 4 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You undid my tagging here, but there being an unmet need for humanitarian protection is an opinion, not a fact, and must be attributed to the source. Same for there being insufficient funding for humanitarian protection. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  05:08, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I think maybe you didn't see my comment about that here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:CT55555&oldid=1148108164 I think the manual of style directs us to not normally not cite the lead if it summarises something cited below. so I assume the tag was in error, although that was before I knew you were doing a review, so I'm less sure of things now. What do you think? CT55555 (talk) 13:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lead does not always need citations, but opinions still need to be attributed per WP:NPOV, and it's not obvious to me where this is cited in the body. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  23:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)