Talk:Investigatory Powers Tribunal

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nomineeInvestigatory Powers Tribunal was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
August 4, 2023Good article nomineeNot listed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 25, 2011.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is the only British judicial body that can investigate whether surveillance carried out by MI5 or MI6 is legal?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Investigatory Powers Tribunal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:54, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Investigatory Powers Tribunal/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Freedom4U (talk · contribs) 04:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am failing this article under criteria number one and three of WP:GAFAIL. Here are some of the issues I see in the article just from a quick skim:

  • The entirety of the Jurisdiction, Appeals, and People sections are cited to primary sources.
  • There is a significant amount of scholarship on the tribunal that the article fails to cover. (See, for example, this Google Scholar search) One source, for example, provides a detailed in-depth level of history on the tribunal; this article provides two sentences on the history of the tribunal. The same is the case with the criticism section, which does not adequately cover the subject matter.
  • The lede does not adequately summarize the content of the article.
  • The article needs a large amount of copyediting:
    • There are spaces between full stops and citations
    • There are one sentence paragraphs that need to be expanded or merged
    • The article uses a significant number of simple sentences that make the prose feel choppy and difficult to read. Examples include the lede and this uncited sentence: The vast majority of decisions are dealt on paper only. This means only a small percentage of cases submitted to the Tribunal proceed to a hearing in court. The Tribunal is under no duty to hold a hearing.
    • Hyphens are being used in place of em-dashes
  • There is one tag for weasel-word phrasing that is not addressed.
  • There are multiple sentences that don't meet the GA criteria for in-line citations or are just entirely unsourced. Examples below:
    • It exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
    • The role is somewhat comparable to the role of the procurator fiscal in Sheriff Court fatal accident inquiries.
    • The Tribunal Members are assisted in their work by a Secretariat, who provide administrative support for the Tribunal including investigating complaints as directed by a Tribunal Member.
    • The IPT was established by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000), replacing the Interception of Communications Tribunal, the Security Service Tribunal, and the Intelligence Services Tribunal.
    • Paton v Poole Borough Council was a high-profile case of a family who were placed under surveillance by Poole Borough Council in order to investigate claims that the family were not living in the school catchment area which they claimed.

@Dreichh: Sorry this review was quite critical. I hope this assessment is constructive to help improve the article and I encourage you to re-nominate the article once these concerns have been addressed. :3 F4U (they/it) 04:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, wasn't expecting it to pass just looking for guides on what needs improving. Dreichh (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Investigatory_Powers_Tribunal&oldid=1205421271"