Talk:Minority Treaties

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Minority Treaties 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
May 18, 2008 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 31, 2007.
WikiProject Politics (Rated GA-class, Low-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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject International relations  
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.

Good article review[edit]

  1. The first footnote is redundant. If the alternative names are worth mentioning, they are worth mentioning in the introduction, ie ABC also known as LMN or XYZ. They should also be linked from redirection pages. The footnote also rather oddly references back into the main article.
  2. The treaties were designed to safeguard the rights of ethnic minorities in those countries Which countries? This paragraph needs to be edited so the reader is clear which class of countries are being addressed by the treaties. Also punctuation needs to be improved.
  3. There were several bilateral Minority Treaties signed between the country in question and the League. Did one country have several treaties? Once again this needs to be re-written to show that that League had treaties with several countries, as outlined in the subsequent sentences.
  4. References These need to be rewritten in Harvard format ie Jones, Sarah. 1999 Minority Treaties University Press, London. etc. Also separate out web links to texts of documents from books and journal articles, and it would be nice if authors were in alphabetical order. You can then alter your footnote notations to "Jones, 1999" etc.

Fix the above and I think we can go forward with this nomination. I enjoyed the commentary under "Importance", I thought it well written and informative. Editors might like to see if you can find an appropiate image, not essential, but adds interest to a page. --Michael Johnson (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I've had to pull back from this process. Hope you find another reviewer, and my comments helpful.--Michael Johnson (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get to reply here. It may be a good idea to add a note that the review comments have been posted to nominator page. Re 1. I think the footnote is helpful, clarifying which names were used for what. This article collects info on several treaties, each of which is notable but not all of which presently have their articles; some sources don't recognize that they were different treaties and confuse them, or just speak of unspecified minority treaty (treaties) in general. Re 2. It is very obvious that the countries which signed the treaty. I am not a native speaker, so if the punctuation needs to be improved, I am not the right person to do it, unfortunately. Re 3. This is unclear indeed, I'll rewrite it shortly - it is one treaty per country, several for the League. Re 4. Harvard style is only one of several allowed per WP:CITE, but we need to do some cleanup w/ regards to notes and refs, I'll do so shortly.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Well, I think the above reviewer got it just about right in his comments. However, I would like to add: if you are going to quote a book, quote the specific pages you're quoting them from, not just the book name.

I'll add more comments shortly. Noble Story (talk) 14:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We are quoting page ranges were appropriate, this will become clear as soon as I do a c/e of the notes/refs.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 12:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Noble Story was obliged to withdraw as well. I am requesting that a second editor conclude this review and have changed the {{GAN}} template accordingly. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 14:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Passed; all issues seem resolved. dihydrogen monoxide (H2O) 02:04, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


WP:Good article usage is a survey of the language and style of Wikipedia editors in articles being reviewed for Good article nomination. It will help make the experience of writing Good Articles as non-threatening and satisfying as possible if all the participating editors would take a moment to answer a few questions for us, in this section please. The survey will end on April 30.

  • Would you like any additional feedback on the writing style in this article?

  • If you write a lot outside of Wikipedia, what kind of writing do you do?

  • Is your writing style influenced by any particular WikiProject or other group on Wikipedia?

At any point during this review, let us know if we recommend any edits, including markup, punctuation and language, that you feel don't fit with your writing style. Thanks for your time. - Dan Dank55 (talk)(mistakes) 03:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)