Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/International Criminal Court/1

International Criminal Court

 * • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review not found
 * Result: The consensus is to delist due to ongoing problems that require more significant attention than can be given in a reasonable time. There are problems regarding sourcing, with challengeable statements and large chunks that remain unsourced. The lead needs attention, it is large and sprawling. The prose in the article is choppy in places, with a feel that notes have been added to the article without thought given to flow and readability, as a result there are sections of the article that are tiring to read, and the information is not adequately conveyed. There is often too much detail, and the article would benefit from trimming back to the essential points. Article fails GA criteria 1(a), 1(b), 2(b) and 3(b).  SilkTork  *Tea time 10:14, 26 May 2011 (UTC)}


 * I completely agree. The article reads like a press release.


 * The first priority should be to draft a section that properly outlines the criticisms. It is for example, a fact that the ICC does not provide for jury trials. Why not just tell the truth and then leave it as a fact? I


 * It is a fact that where jury trials are a fundamental human right that the ICC denies this human right. The ICC does not consider a jury trial to be a human right. Just tell the truth. That is the truth. Instead of telling the truth, why go off on spin? It doesn't really matter to this article if the US military get jury trials or not. The whole topic is irrelevant to the ICC article and should not even be here.


 * It is also a fact that where public trials are a fundamental human right that the ICC also denies this human right. Just tell the truth, that the ICC simply does not consider this to be a human right.


 * The article incorrectly claims that the US Uniform Code of Military Justice does not allow for a jury when it does. Just as with any US court, an accused may either request a judicial trial or to be tried by a panel of their peers who are not judges or lawyers.


 * This is but one example of why the article is biased and is not factual. It cannot be fixed with a few edits. Fixing the issue that I raise would only be a good beginning. The ICC like everything else has its good points and its bad points. Only an ICC press release would read like this article does. Raggz (talk) 03:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

An IP editor who chooses not to register for privacy reasons requested this. His reasons were: 3+ years since a review, 500+ edits, high profile institution, and bare URLS. -- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  23:17, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I checked dabs, one found in ref#1 but I understand this is deliberate. I repaired 49 dead links and tagged a further 7 for which no archived version could be found. Checklinks added titles to bare urls, but references could do with consistent formatting, including author and publisher details. The majority of sources are from the ICC itself. there are some largely uncited sections. Images appear OK. Prose appears to be OK. Stable. Needs more detail on states which have not signed or are critical of the court. The lead does not fully summarise the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The nominating editor, 01:48, 30 July 2007, User:Sideshow Bob Roberts, has not edited since 18:36, 13 September 2009 Jezhotwells (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have informed the Law and Human Rights projects of this reassessment. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:13, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I reached this page via the Human Rights Article Alerts page, my initial assessment (independent of the GA criteria) is that this still remains one of our best articles, with brilliant content that is probably unrivaled in any other tertiary source. On the other hand, there are very obvious areas for improvement, in particular in relation to the ongoing investigations and in progress cases and the relevant criticism thereof. Ultimately this article is probably due a reassessment and I would love to help improve any particular areas of weakness that are identified, but at the same time this is a huge and continually developing topic, and we probably do not have the manpower to keep it up to GA status in the longterm ( this pending any new involved editor comments, I would love to be wrong about this!) Ajbpearce (talk) 23:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Jezhotwells. And hello Ajbpearce, GA is mostly concerned with technical stuff rather than content, but you're already aware of that, heh. I was also technically not the one who nominated it for reassessment and I'm not a reviewer nor an involved editor so I can't actually pinpoint where it might fail the GA criteria. I did it as help for an IP user (I'm a helper volunteer in our IRC channel), since IP's can't nominate articles for WP:GAR themselves. Jezhotwells has pinpointed several problems though, I suggest fixing those (the uncited sections seem to be the most pressing concern at the moment). Thanks again.-- Obsidi ♠ n Soul  01:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * minor note, on the 27th feb Jezhotwells added a primary sources tag to the article. I don't really think that it was appropriate criticism / review for this article. Generally - the primary sources seemed to be used descriptively to support factual statements about, e.g the composition of the court, or the content of the articles of the rome statute -  where they are the authoritative and most helpful sources for us to link to. I obviously have not gone through all of the 150 citations in detail though, so if you had specific concerns I've missed/overlooked, then could you raise them here? (and i'll obv try to deal with them) Ajbpearce (talk) 23:03, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Some improvements have been made, but:
 * There are citations to other Wikipedia articles, e.g. #24, 25 Fixed, these were places when a blue link would have been fine
 * Outstanding dead link tags - These links all go to the website of the ICC, which is not working at the moment, when/is it is fixed these links should come back, if that site remains down permanently (unliley for a major international organisation) then this is a bigger problem though
 * Publisher details still missing form citations, inconsistent citation style - As I understand it, the GA criteria do not require that there is a "consistent" style, beyond that they are inline citations from reliable sources, which I think this article has everywhere except at Victim participation where there are two paragraphs that need citations
 * WP:CITEVAR is the applicable guideline. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Victim participation and reparations section has outstanding citations needed tag - Agreed, see above, will try and work on this
 * The Duplication Detector and Earwig indicate a number of likely copywrite violations. If sections of the establishing statutes are used, they need to be rendered as quotations - Any non-trivial section of the statue appears to be rendered as quotations already as far as I can tell, in regards to the reports generated by earwig, they are all almost certainly examples of people C&P a sentence or two from the wikipedia article, or just coincidence when discussing a related topic
 * Jezhotwells (talk) 15:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The Territorial jurisdiction section has a lrge section which should be in quotes.
 * Also Office of the Prosecutor
 * All of these lengthy quotes should be rendered in blockquotes to make them stand out better.
 * There are still a lot of stray sentences.


 * Delist: There has been editing activity, but none seem to address the points that have been raised. There appear to be many books, news articles and journals which cover the establishment and activities of the court which could be used. Long outstanding dead links, weasel words, and references needed tags. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Updated with response to 3 of the 4 specific issues you raised, if you could say where weasel words are used, I could fix those, i did not notice them on a read-through Ajbpearce (talk) 18:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * The court's creation perhaps constitutes the most significant reform of international law since 1945 "perhaps"
 * 45 United Nations member states have neither signed nor ratified the Rome Statute; some of them, including China and India, are considered by some[who?] to be critical to the success of the court. twice, in lead and artcile. The lead sentence is identical to that in the body, which is not right, the lead should be summary style.
 * Some commentators have argued that the Rome Statute defines crimes too broadly or too vaguely.
 * Some argue that the protections offered by the ICC are insufficient.
 * Taking into account the experience of the ICTY (which worked with the principle of the primacy, instead of complementarity) in relation to co-operation, some scholars have expressed their pessimism as to the possibility of ICC to obtain co-operation of non-party states.
 * It is sometimes argued that amnesties are necessary to allow the peaceful transfer of power from abusive regimes
 * For example, the outstanding arrest warrants for four leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army are regarded by some as an obstacle to ending the insurgency in Uganda
 * The fact that so far the International Criminal Court has only investigated African countries and only indicted Africans is creating resentment in some African countries, even in countries which are state parties to the Court.
 * All of these instances of "some" or "sometimes" need in-text attribution. The issue of the majority of sources being primary, when there are many available books, journal articles and news items which could be used has not been addressed. The strcuture of the article is not good. There are a number of short sections.  Full quotes from statutes are not always needed, summary style is more applicable. This is an artcile for the general reader.  The footnotes and external links can provide the detail. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delist. This can't stay in rehabilitation forever, its had long enough to improve but isn't there. Szzuk (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I fixed the easy issues raised, and I am not sure all of the complaints made against the article are valid, but its clear it has issues that its become clear I have neither the time or interest to solve, so.... Ajbpearce (talk) 20:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree. There have been improvements but it needs someone to spend a few hours on it. It would be quite a lot of effort, and in my opinion that would be unrewarding. As it's had 10 weeks here I think it's fair to conclude other potentially interested editors have the same opinion as us. It's time to close this one. Szzuk (talk) 14:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:DEADREF before dealing with the dead link tags; it was substantially revised earlier this year. Dead links are not actually prohibited by the GA criteria. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 24 May 2011 (UTC)