Talk:United Nations/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Chris troutman (talk · contribs) 01:03, 30 December 2013 (UTC) GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   In the Peacekeeping section I would reword the sentence Disagreements in the Security Council about military action and intervention are seen as having failed to prevent the 1971 Bangladesh genocide,[94] the 1970s Cambodian genocide,[95] and the 1994 Rwandan Genocide,[96] failed to stop the 1995 Srebrenica massacre and protect a refugee haven there by authorising peacekeepers to use force,[96] and failed to complete the 1992–93 peacekeeping operations during the Somali Civil War to something clearer, like "disagreements...are seen as having failed to prevent the 1971 genocide, the 1970s genocide, and the 1994 genocide as well as having failed to either stop the 1995 massacre or complete the 1992-93 peacekeeping operations." I find Sentence diagramming is useful in these cases. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

   Quite right. When one tries to pack too many ideas into one sentence, it's easy to get lost. After trying different structures out, I decided to split the sentence like this: "Disagreements ... are seen as having failed to prevent the [x1], the [x2], and the [x3]. Similarly, UN inaction is sometimes blamed for allowing the [x4] without protecting [x5] by authorising [x6], and for failing to complete the [x7]." Does this resolve the issue? – Quadell ^(talk) 16:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

   That second sentence is still tricky. Why not say "Similarly, UN inaction is sometimes blamed for failing to either prevent the 1995 Srebrenica massacre or complete the 1992–93 peacekeeping operations during the Somali Civil War." The timeline of not allowing peacekeepers to use force, thereby failing to protect the refugee haven, culminating in the massacre is explained in the article about the massacre. Of course, I don't think there's any sometimes about it. I think anybody blames the UN for both of those failures. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   Yeah, I want to be as NPOV as possible on controversial periods of UN history, but you're right, no one could reasonably claim that UN action did not allow these things to happen. I went with your wording. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   In the Security Council section, the section in citation 60 (from Fasulo) establishes that the P5 has veto power, but it does not specify between types of resolutions. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

   You're right, I can see those pages of Fasulo in Google Books, and it isn't there. It's also unsourced in the United Nations Security Council veto power article. When I research the concept, I find some sources (e.g. Bardo Fassbender's "UN Security Council Reform and the Right of Veto: A Constitutional Perspective") that indicate there is no difference in practice between procedural and substantive resolutions it terms of veto power. So I've removed that claim. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

   In the Post Cold War section, the citation makes no mention that either Britain or Singapore joined the US in withdrawing from UNESCO. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

   Happily, I found a source that does support the claim, and I added it. – Quadell ^(talk) 17:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

   Many thanks. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Thanks for taking this on, Chris. As you've probably gathered, I haven't edited this article much myself; Khazar did all the hard work, and retired shortly after nominating it. I'm certainly will to help resolve any issues you find, though I may not be able to do the sort of major rewriting or source checking that Khazar could have done. (Hopefully it won't need that - the article appears to me to be a strong contender.) Anyway, I look forward to your comments. – Quadell ^(talk) 12:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

With that in mind I've been tweaking page numbers in citations as I find necessary. In some cases entire chapters were cited, which is unhelpful. I'm trying to stick to making only minor changes like that in light of your statement without overstepping my role as GA reviewer. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I believe I have addressed all the issues you raised. Please let me know if there's more I should do. All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 17:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm still checking other citations as I have time. It'll be a little while longer before I can properly respond. I'll let you know if there's anything else. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have kept you waiting so long. I'm busy during the week and there were so many citations to go through. This is on hold only for that one sentence. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm glad that such an important article received a thorough review! – Quadell ^(talk) 15:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course. I also had to go back and correct that Bush quote. The sentence in the article was accurate to the source material in Yang. The problem was that Yang among others was quoting Glennon and Glennon misquoted Bush. I felt it made sense to reinsert the sentence as a criticism, but providing the correct quote for context. I'll likely go back and insert a note to explain all this. I consider this job done. Chris Troutman (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)