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

the biggest problem[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 (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)


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 (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)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. 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.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)