Talk:Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women/GA2

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

Reviewer: &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 22:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello. Overall the article is definitely of B quality, good work so far! After reviewing the article, and the past peer review and GA review, I see the same concerns I have were also raised there. While some have been addressed, there are some things that still need to be addressed:


 * Prose
 * The lead has a single sentence paragraph and needs to be expanded or merged with the preceding paragraph. The article is long enough for a two to three paragraph lead. The easiest thing to do would be to add to that sentence information about the adoption process. Check out WP:Paragraph.
 * In describing the articles of the treaty, you bold the leading words which are part of the sentences. This is not really good form. Review MOS:BOLDTITLE for some tips. If you are going to bold them as titles, you should disjoin them from the sentences.
 * Although this is not required to pass this review, the article would benefit from a table listing all countries who are signatories, the date they became signatories, and also countries who may be in the process of adopting the treaty.
 * Broad coverage
 * The article is lacking a section giving reasons other counties have not joined, most notably China and the USA. There must be reasons they have not joined, and likely some criticism to the protocol (or original treaty which the protocol is appended).
 * The article, and most importantly the section describing the articles of the treaty, are using primary sources. See WP:Primary for some pointers in dealing with primary sources. While you are not misusing them, they do not allow for any interpretations, which an article like this really needs. It would benefit from a third party critique and analysis of the treaty for a source, this would allow you to add information about possible flaws in the treaty as well as areas of particular benefit.

I am placing the article on hold for seven days. Please address these concerns and we can go from there. :) Happy editing. &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 22:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the review and helpful comments. I've started making the changes you suggest:
 * Prose
 * reorganised lead to eliminate single sentence paragraph;
 * removed bold text from thesummary. IMHO it looks like a dog, but... Would italics add to readibility?
 * I've been trying to avoid the long laundry list of parties in editing these articles, since it doesn't add much IMHO and distracts from the substantive provisions. I note that the page on CEDAW has a seperate article, List of parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, which I think is a better way of handling it.
 * Broad coverage
 * added brief information on the US and China in the "Reservations and membership" section. I'd like to avoid reguritating the "controversy" section from the CEDAW article, since it really belongs there (and besides, there's not much in the way of sources.  People and countries which object to CEDAW focus on the treaty itself, and their objection to it makes the OP rather moot, so they don't bother mentioning it).  I'm trying to come up with an elegant way of pointing readers to that material, which I'll stick in the "criticism" section.  With China, I haven't been able to find a source yet giving a specific reason (sovereignty, I think), so I've quoted their bland diplomatic response in their latest CEDAW review.
 * Interpretation: as noted in the long discussion above, OP-CEDAW is a procedural adjunct to CEDAW, and so there's not a hell of a lot to interpret (all the controversial and unclear stuff is in CEDAW itself). But I've added a few bits which cropped up regularly in the journal articles, and I've also added some third-party critique.
 * --IdiotSavant (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work! &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 15:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In regards to boding the article titles. You could do it like this. "Article 1: The first article of the protocol does XYZ". It is just the bolding it as part of the sentence that is incorrect use of bolding.
 * I agree that a long list of all the countries that are signatories in a prose format would look poor. But a separate article with a list, or a table on this article showing each of the signatories would be useful.
 * I don't think you need to repeat the controversy section of the original treaty, but a simple statement along the lines you have now is good. "X country has not became a signatory because it is not a signatory of the primary treaty."
 * On my reread of the article I also picked up one other small issue, it states "The Protocol has been criticised by feminists who view the complaints mechanism as difficult, lengthy,[21] and lacking transparency". Could you give the specific feminist organization(s), or specific feminist(s) who made the criticisms? If there are many, then just a couple as an example would be fine.
 * My biggest concern remains the heavy reliance on primary sources. But given the topic and article contents, I think it will be ok. I have left the review open for a second opinion. If no other editor objects then I will be pass the review at the end of the seven day period, provided all other issues have been resolved.


 * OK, I've followed the style of the CEDAW page, and added a link to List of parties to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, which I'll stick on the WikiProject_Human_rights to do list. I've reworded the section on the US, and named specific feminists and legal academics who have criticised the Protocol (rather than just leaving it in the refs).--IdiotSavant (talk) 01:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am passing this review now. There have been no outside comments in concern to the use of the primary sources. I feel that as the article currently is, their use is acceptable. I am on the fence with this though, I feel this article will definitely need more third party sources to move the quality rating any further. Good job, and keep up the good work! :) &mdash;Charles Edward (Talk 16:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)