Talk:International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 21, 2008 Peer review Reviewed
July 18, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Human rights (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International development (Rated GA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International development, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of international development, including such areas as appropriate technology, microfinance and social issues, on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject International relations / law  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject International law.
 
WikiProject New Zealand  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

=the biggest problem[edit]

Untitled[edit]

There is no clear, comprehensive list of all the rights listed! For those who would like an overview before researching the finer points (such as the structure of the covenent), the article is confusing. Can this be remedied? I don't see how this article could ever be a good article if it doesn't even include every article of the convenent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.67.178 (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)






GA nomination[edit]

Hi, I saw that this was nominated for a Good Article review. Although I don't have time to do a full review, I wanted to mention a few things that would hold the article back during a review:

  1. The article needs to be thoroughly sourced. Currently, there are statements (including entire paragraphs) without references. This also includes quotations, which always need to be referenced.
  2. References need to be placed after punctuation. Most of them are placed before punctuation right now (and, at the end of the "United States Position" section, there is no punctuation at all).
  3. Section headers are improperly capitalized. Unless they are proper nouns, words in section headers (except the first word, of course) should not be capitalized. For example: "United States Position" should be "United States position".
  4. The reference list should not be a scrolling list (see Wikipedia:Citing sources#Scrolling lists).
  5. I think the "Reservations" section would work better as prose.

I hope this feedback helps. If you have a chance to work on these before a reviewer comes along, it should speed up the process. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I've done 3 and 4, and worked on punctuation around references. I'm not so sure about 5; there's a lot of information, and it would read like a pig.
I'll add more references in, since there are a couple of spaces shich could use them, but the "summary" and "reservations" section each cite a single document (the convention text and the ratlist respectively), with the summary section making it clear in the text exactly which subsection it is referring to. I could footnote every line with a generic "Ibid", but it would be both ugly and redundant. IdiotSavant (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Good article nomination on hold[edit]

This article's Good Article promotion has been put on hold. During review, some issues were discovered that can be resolved without a major re-write. This is how the article, as of July 12, 2008, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Think it needs more inline citations. I can understand why you think it might look ugly and duplicate inlines would be redundant. Instead if multiple citations for the same source are included in the article, and you are using the <ref> and </ref> tabs, you can reconfigure the first <ref> tab to create small letters that link to the same spot - See Wikipedia:Inline_citations#Cite.php, I've also made a start from footnote 45 to show an example. This will confirm statements' verifiability more comprehensively and the article more generally. Also, though many of the references may come from one document, some might be on different pages/in different paras of documents so instead of ibid you can put the page/para number as you've been doing for some of the other refs.
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass

Please address this is soon as you can, then leave a note here stating it's been resolved. Thank you for your work so far. Tom (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

How's it looking now? I've added more refs, particularly around quotes where there's the slightest doubt about where it came from, and referenced the reservations individually rather than with one bulk ref at the top. --IdiotSavant (talk) 03:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW, I see what you mean about he Ibids; I inadvertandly messed one up this afternoon while adding a ref. I've fixed it now, and reformatted the ICESCR refs as shown. --IdiotSavant (talk) 13:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

The article itself seems to be in good shape. It is well written, contains suitable images and correctly referenced. Perhaps a few more references would help, but I believe this to be unnecessary. The article seems to be of GA standard, and I think it should be listed as such. J.T Pearson (talk) 13:19, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Genesis[edit]

On the "Genesis" part, although everything that is written is accurate, i feel that there are other aspects that should be at least ackowledged in some way. Specially, it should be noted that the rights listed on the ICESCR have its roots on socialist criticism of the first human rights as the rights of the new ruling class (see Marx "on the jewish question" for the most influential paper on that) because they didn't see men as concrete beings living in an unequal world in terms of resources distribution. The importance of that origin cannot be minimized once we put the two covenants on the context of the cold war. Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.21.130.1 (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I think you are correct. As I understand the history, ICESCR was pressed for by the Soviet block as a quid pro quo for accepting the western supported International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. --Rumping (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)