Wikipedia:Peer review/Schubert practice/archive1

Schubert practice


I've listed this article for peer review because it's a pretty complete article about the topic, and is well-referenced (but many references are hard to check). It has been created through translation of the frwiki featured article. For a freshly translated article, the language isn't so bad. I have expanded the lead and reorganized the body. I would like someone's feedback on what would be the top priority areas for improvement with an article such as this, in anticipation of a theoretical GA at some future date.

Thanks, —Alalch E. 19:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Comments from Z1720
Comments after a quick skim:


 * Inline citations for block quotes should be either right before the block quote (After the colon) or after the last work of the quote.
 * "However, the Court recalls that domestic law must be interpreted in a manner consistent with international law." Needs a citation
 * "(thereby diminishing its practical scope)." needs a citation
 * "which was still the case in July 2020." Recommend removing per MOS:DATED
 * "which is in contradiction with international law, constituting a new situation (as the Schubert jurisprudence only deals with the conflict between federal law and international law)." Needs a citationo
 * "- the Federal Supreme Court mentioned this case law once again, but did not apply it to individual cases." Needs a citation
 * All notes need a citation.
 * If you are looking for additional sources (perhaps English ones, since this was a translated article) I suggest looking in Google Scholar, WP:LIBRARY, archive.org, doaj.org, or your local library system.

I hope this helps. Z1720 (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you.—Alalch E. 00:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Closing comment
Certain deficiencies and ways to improve the article were identified by Z1720. I am probably able to follow up on the recommendations, but it is something that can not happen quickly. The review has not attracted further participation and has been open for months. There isn't an active discussion. Therefore, I am closing this peer review as the nominator.—Alalch E. 00:06, 1 December 2023 (UTC)