User:Pi/UserProject ICC/KenyaGA1

GA Review

 * This review is transcluded from Talk:International Criminal Court investigation in Kenya/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

GA Review Philosophy
When I do an article review I like to provide a Heading-by-Heading breakdown of suggestions for how to make the article better. It is done in good faith as a means to improve the article. It does not necessarily mean that the article is not GA quality, or that the issues listed are keeping it from GA approval. I also undertake minor grammatical and prose edits. After I finish this part of the review I will look at the over arching quality of the article in light of the GA criteria. If I feel as though the article meets GA Standards I will promote it, if it does not then I will hold the article for a week pending work.

GA Checklist
I think it is a travesty that you have had to wait since April for your article to be reviewed. Unfortunately I won't be able to review it today but I will start the review and I should have it completed this week. H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 16:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Pre-trial phase

 * Is there anything else that came out of the initial hearings? The quote is good but I'm wondering what else was discussed or decisions made.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 18:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Punctuation has been an issue throughout the article. I've made some fixes but you should check the entire article.  Refs go after the punctuation, not before.

International response

 * Was there any other response than just from the US? No other nation responded?
 * Not sure what the final paragraph adds to the article. It seems tangental and a bit biased within the context.  Not that the assertions about the ICC only handling court cases from Africa isn't true, I'm sure it is, but why include it in this article?

Overall

 * At this point I do not think the article meets the GA criteria. Here are my reasons:
 * There are some poorly worded sentences that make it difficult to understand the author's intent. I've listed the most egregious ones here I feel as though a good copy edit would help immensely.
 * A lot of punctuation errors, I've tried to fix as many as I could find but this should be addressed.
 * The lead is ok but information in the lead that isn't in the article should be either removed or put into the article. Also info in the article should be summarized in the lead.
 * The article is fairly well sourced but I'm concerned about the use of opinion pieces as sources. I listed my concern about ref 10 and that it does not support the statement.
 * I put in two templates that should be addressed.
 * The final paragraph about Africa's issue with the ICC seems a bit biased, I'm open to discussing this point if you feel strongly that it should be left in the article.
 * Consistency w/in the reference formatting is important.


 * I will place the article on hold for one week pending work. If you have problems or questions please discuss them here so that the review can remain complete.  If I don't respond w/in a day or two please ping me on my talk page.  Thank you for your work on this article, it is commendable to try and improve article quality.  Keep up the good work.  H1nkles (talk) citius altius fortius 19:12, 20 July 2011 (UTC)