Talk:International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Good article nomination on hold
This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 12, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:


 * 1. Well written?: Pass
 * 2. Factually accurate?: Think it needs more inline citations. I can understand why you think it might look ugly and duplicate inlines would be redundant.  Instead if multiple citations for the same source are included in the article, and you are using the  tabs, you can reconfigure the first tab to create small letters that link to the same spot - See Inline_citations, I've also made a start from footnote 45 to show an example. This will confirm statements' verifiability more comprehensively and the article more generally. Also, though many of the references may come from one document, some might be on different pages/in different paras of documents so instead of ibid you can put the page/para number as you've been doing for some of the other refs.
 * 3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
 * 4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
 * 5. Article stability? Pass
 * 6. Images?: Pass

Please address this is soon as you can, then leave a note here stating it's been resolved. Thank you for your work so far. Tom (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How's it looking now? I've added more refs, particularly around quotes where there's the slightest doubt about where it came from, and referenced the reservations individually rather than with one bulk ref at the top. --IdiotSavant (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, I see what you mean about he Ibids; I inadvertandly messed one up this afternoon while adding a ref. I've fixed it now, and reformatted the ICESCR refs as shown. --IdiotSavant (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The article itself seems to be in good shape. It is well written, contains suitable images and correctly referenced. Perhaps a few more references would help, but I believe this to be unnecessary. The article seems to be of GA standard, and I think it should be listed as such. J.T Pearson (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)