Talk:Targeted Killing in International Law/GA1

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

Reviewer: maclean (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good article review (see What is a good article? for criteria)

Thank you very much for your time, and thank you for doing the GA Review. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * All references are to journals or other reliable sources
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * Addresses major aspects: background, contents, publication, reception
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable:
 * 2) It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
 * 1 image used, with a valid fair use rationale
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Notes
 * 1a. Prose
 * "The book delves into the history surrounding use of targeted killing as a strategy within multiple countries including the United States, the United Kingdom, Israel, Switzerland, and Germany; both for military and law enforcement purposes." - (1) unclear where the targeted killing is occuring: 'within the US/UK/etc' or 'by the US/UK/etc in other countries'? (2) It might be best to specifically indicate this is a government policy (3) semicolons separate independent clauses; I think em-dashes between the list of example countries would be best here. (also "...utilized targeted killing; in November 2000.")
 * "He gives lectures at the Master-level..." - I suggest using the past tense or using specific dates for when this happened. The reference is proof enough that he has done this but doesn't indicate that he still does this in the present.
 * "Metropolitan Policy" - unclear what that is
 * "occurred in the U.S. Melzer" - I think this is the end of a sentence (at "U.S.", correct?) should this have 2 dots or just one?
 * I'm not a fan of quotes in the Lead section. I see that as being too specific in something that is supposed to be a general summary. This is not a GA requirement, as I do note that WP:LEAD does not specifically exclude the use of quotes, but just a general thought.
 * Is there anything to suggest the "Kenneth Anderson" named in this article is the same as Kenneth Anderson (jurist)?
 * 2 References/Citations
 * I suggest switching out Ref 15 ("OCLC 489257770") to a published source or to the actual OUP website on that lists the Oxford Monographs in International Law
 * The quotebox repeats a quote used in the text.
 * "Hoffmann notes, "Targeted Killing in..." - seems to be missing the end quote marks.
 * Responses to above comments by Maclean25
 * 1) Made this more clear regarding government strategy.
 * 2) Made this more clear that it is used by the countries mentioned.
 * 3) Applied recommendation regarding semicolons versus em-dashes.
 * 4) Changed to past tense the lecturing at Master-level.
 * 5) This was a typo, fixed it to Metropolitan Police.
 * 6) Changed this from U.S. to United States at end of sentence, so the dot is clearer.
 * 7) Removed all quotes from the lede sect.
 * Yes, linked this author name in the article.
 * 1) Removed the OCLC ref, replaced it with the ref suggested by the GA Reviewer.
 * 2) Removed the quotebox.
 * 3) Fixed, added the ending quote marks.
 * Yes, linked this author name in the article.
 * 1) Removed the OCLC ref, replaced it with the ref suggested by the GA Reviewer.
 * 2) Removed the quotebox.
 * 3) Fixed, added the ending quote marks.
 * Conclusion
 * "Reasonably well written", broad yet focused, with appropriate references/citations. If anyone is going to take this onward to FAC, I suggest creating a Style section (or Themes) - some of the necessary information is already in Reception and Contents and could be expanded upon. For example, "clearly structured" indicates to me that a obvious structure is used which can be explained in a Style section, and "recommended to scholars, practitioners, and students alike" indicates a target audience who the style is addressing. By the way, I preferred the quotebox over the in-text quote. --maclean (talk) 22:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the GA Review. -- Cirt (talk) 11:38, 8 November 2010 (UTC)