Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Human security/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 23:04, 16 March 2007.

Human security
There are lots and lots of problems like this, needs a thorough copyedit, simplification, and translation into English from bureaucratese. The basic idea is simple - people want to be safe, fed, clothed, working. It's not a subject requiring latinate words, it's not a new idea. Simplify, drastically simplify. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Nominator statement: I stumbled onto this article and was stunned by its high quality. I have had nothing to do with editing it.  Apparently, creation of this page was a semester project for an entire class at University of Hong Kong in Spring of 2006.  Few changes have been made to the article since then, so it is highly stable.  I am skipping the usual peer review here because 1) this article is just that good and 2) I know nothing about the topic and so would not be able to do much in response to a peer review. It's well written, comprehensive and factually accurate (as far as I know), and scrupulously neutral.  It also has excellent sources.-Fagles 20:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
 * comment interesting article. Needs citations throughout. Hmains 18:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I think it has sufficient referencing and being very informative. Lord Metroid 08:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose As a student of international relations, I haven't come across a resource on human security as easily usable as this one. It's comprehensive while still being short and readable, and is an outstanding resource. Although it comes close to FA standard, I feel I have to oppose it at this stage, as there are just too many challengeable (although I think neutral and justified) statements unsupported by citations - if there were less I'd set them as an action. Mostlyharmless 22:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Oppose It's a real mess. Bureaucratic language, grammar problems, sections are POV...
 * Human security refers to the security of individuals - defining a term using part of the term. Rephrase.
 * Numbers like "17 million people annually" need citations - I imagine they're from the HDR, but that is a big thing, need sections or page numbers
 * 5.5 million of deaths in a year. - grammar
 * our security apparatuses - Wp:mos
 * for youth in Africa in 1980s - grammar
 * attempts to operationalize this human security agenda - aiee! translate from bureaucratese
 * The emergence of 'security dilemma' also help explain - grammar
 * Arms Control section is highly POV; why focus solely on the Ottawa Convention? US world's largest military? List_of_countries_by_size_of_armed_forces
 * Critics of human security note - like who? WP:WEASEL
 * Terrorism section similarly POV -
 * HIV/AIDSin - space; 3 mentions in same sentence, all linked
 * According to Peter Gleick... considers the three biggest threats to national security are - grammar
 * human security proponents argue - who? WP:WEASEL again
 * supplement and encourage existing channels for climate change response. - bureaucratese
 * vicious cycles of lack of development leading to conflict leading to lack of development can readily emerged. - aieee!
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.