Wikipedia:Peer review/United Nations/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

United Nations[edit]

Previous peer review
(more info)

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I'm working to bring it to Good Article status. Normally I wouldn't open one of these for a GA, but this has been an unusually hard article to write, since its scope is sprawling in space (global), time (50+ years), organizationally (six major organs and countless agencies with diverse agenda), and analysis/response (the UN, alas, has no Metacritic score to include). I think I'm close but I've reached a point where outside input would be helpful, and the article's talk page has been quiet.

So all feedback is welcome, but I'm particularly interested to know:

  1. In what ways might this still fall short of the GA criteria?
  2. In particular, are any major aspects or facts being omitted? Conversely, is there any area in which the article is overdetailed?
  3. Do you have any suggestions for improvement outside of GA issues?

Thanks, Khazar2 (talk) 02:29, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Crisco comments[edit]

Hi K, this is a massive piece of work. I'll try and give a bit of feedback, though it may end up being mostly prose stuff. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

  • It contains multiple subsidiary organizations to carry out its missions. - so the containing of organizations helps the UN carry out its mission? (That's what it reads like here)
  • On reflection, I'm just cutting this sentence; the organizational breakdown is given in much more detail in the third paragraph anyway. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • financed by assessed and voluntary contributions - confusing, for me at least. What are "assessed contributions"? Or are you missing a comma here?
  • I think "assessed contributions" is the correct term here--the UN looks at the GDP of member states and essentially taxes them for their share. The "voluntary" part goes into programs like WFP that aren't in the main UN budget. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd find a source and add a footnote. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Cold War between the US and USSR - is this a bit of an oversimplification? NATO and the USSR, perhaps?
  • Added "and their respective allies", which is comparable to the wording in the Cold War lead (a GA). -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • currently inactive - as of? I'd say "since 1994" or whatever
  •  Done
  • The UN's objectives include maintaining international peace and security, promoting human rights, fostering social and economic development, protecting the environment, and providing humanitarian aid in cases of famine, natural disaster, and armed conflict. - is this redundant to the first paragraph?
  • Part of it, but it's an expanded list. I'm not sure quite how to handle that, since not all of these objectives were present at the UN's founding (which is how the first paragraph is oriented). -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • international structures for areas such as postal mail, aviation, and opium control - is areas the best word?
  • USSR - why link USSR and not the other nations? I think most people will still know the USSR
  •  Done
  •  Done
  • Third World nations organized into the Group of 77 - do we have to use "third world" here? I seem to recall that term falling out of favour in recent years.
  • I think it's historically appropriate in the context of the '70s, but I'll make sure it's not used later in any present-day contexts. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Meisler, pp. 312–29; quotation "worldwide ridicule" is on p. 293 - are those numbers correct? 293 is outside of 312–29
  • Clarified. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • You mention UNESCO out of the blue in the history section, when readers may or may not know what it is (it wasn't in the lead)
  • Added to the lead (should have been there anyway), and added a phrase of context. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • For "Specialized institutions", I'd recommend against using flags as they are almost illegible at 16 px and not all organizations have free logos (doesn't look standardized).
  • I took out the organizational logos (I agree). Are you suggesting taking out the flags in the headquarters and "head" columns also? I could go either way on that, I think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Country flags are generally more recognisable, though WP:MOSFLAG would seem to say to not include them. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 19:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

More to follow... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:30, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look, and for the good suggestions so far. I'll start implementing/addressing tomorrow. -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've done about 80% of the above. Thanks again for the suggestions. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Any other subgroups aside from the Group of 77?
  • Not that I'm aware of. NATO doesn't really have the same consistency in its voting.
  • UN to be successful in two out of three peacekeeping efforts. - Would "66 percent of its peacekeeping efforts" be better?
  • a refugee haven by authorising peacekeepers to use force, - where?
  •  Done
  • child rape, sexual abuse or soliciting prostitutes during various peacekeeping missions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, - Did you ever read the TV tropes article on "Arson, Murder, and Jaywalking"? Prostitution isn't a crime in some countries...
  •  Done
  • In 1980, the agency eradicated smallpox, - this implies that Smallpox eradication was done only in a year, and only be the agency. If I remember the smallpox article correctly, smallpox was declared eradicated in 1980, but the last cases were a couple years before then.
  •  Done
  • and in subsequent decades largely eradicated polio, river blindness, and leprosy. - again, it is not only this organization which has been making strides, as implied by the wording here. Rotary International's Polio Plus campaign, for instance, has helped quite a bit... I seem to remember the organization spending several billion dollars in the effort.
  • Did the first part. As for the second part, the Polio Plus site lists WHO as one of their partners, so I think it's still fair to give WHO the lion's share of the credit (as the source does).
  • "with no votes against but abstentions from all major colonial powers." - Nothing to fix, I just love this quote. "Well, if we say 'Don't take our stuff' we'll be accused of not being fair, but we don't want to look weak..."
  • Yeah, that part made me laugh, too.
  • Off the top of my head, Lester B. Pearson earned a Nobel Peace Prize for helping spearhead the peacekeeping movement (and was quite active in the UN too)
  • Fair enough. I'd left him off as a non-UN employee, but it's UN-related enough to include. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Any more praise of the UN? That's a seriously negative section there.
  • I'll look into this, but I think it's actually a fair summary to say that the UN is constantly criticized by governments around the world for different (and often opposite) reasons: it's too weak or too strong, too communist or too capitalist, too focused on military or too focused on development, etc.
  • Okay, I've worked to balance this a bit more by reducing the criticism regarding Israel, adding another positive evaluation, and a recent statement from France on the organization's importance. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Watch for overlinking. I think this article is suffering a serious case of it. Third World, almost everything in #Post-Cold War... the list goes on. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:10, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I plan to run the script once we're done here. But that Post Cold-War part is just an odd glitch with the script; I'm not sure why it's flagging every single link in that section. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
  • No, check that, it's some accidentally duplicated text that snuck in last night when I had multiple windows open. Fixed now. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to read this long article--your input's much appreciated! -- Khazar2 (talk) 11:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program[edit]

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program

Suggestions generated by an automatic JavaScript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  •  Done
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.[?]
  •  Done, I think
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • allege
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).[?]
    • Striking-- the "allege" appears in a source title -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Please make the spelling of English words consistent with either American or British spelling, depending upon the subject of the article. Examples include: defence (B) (American: defense), organize (A) (British: organise), recognize (A) (British: recognise), recognise (B) (American: recognize), criticize (A) (British: criticise), ization (A) (British: isation), isation (B) (American: ization), analyse (B) (American: analyze), paralyse (B) (American: paralyze), programme (B) (American: program ).
    • Attempted to standardize/ise this. -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas.

  •  Done

-(tJosve05a (c) 02:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Piotrus[edit]

  • Ref at the end "General Assembly" - does it apply to the entire list? If so, I'd prefer to see it following the colon, not the last entry. Not sure what's the MoS take on it, though.
  •  Done
  • See also seems large. It is an old rule of thumb that the better the article, the fewer see also's it should have. Their existence indicates either a MoS failure (don't link in see also what's linked in body) or that the article fails on being comprehensive (important related topics are not discussed in body).
  •  Done I agree, this was out of hand. I've trimmed it to what seems to me a more reasonable size. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Through it is not something I'd insist, perhaps the interesting story of Poland's delayed membership (see Enlargement of the United Nations) would be worth of a short sentence in the history. On a second thought, considering that the history mentions both the 50 and 51 numbers, and doesn't explain that the extra 1 is Poland... please add this.
  •  Done I added this as an explanatory footnote, since it's a bit involved and I don't want to give it undue weight. Thanks for this suggestion--I was curious who the 51st had been, and my sources hadn't said.
  • I got a few hits on "highlight duplicate links" tool.
  •  Done I did another pass and removed almost all, though there's a few passing mentions (like Secretary-Generals mentioned in both the History and Secretary-General sections) that I left to avoid confusion. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your suggestions--I'll be acting on all of them. I agree that the Poland bit is interesting and worth a mention, just need to dig up a decent source on it first. -- Khazar2 (talk) 18:15, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Comments by kaireky[edit]

I'm new around here but looking to get involved with the UN Wikiprojects. I found your request for feedback on there. I'm just giving some general things to look at for now.

In the introductory section, the last paragraph is three sentences that have little in common with each other, and it's confusing. I would think the list of UN objectives would better fit in one of the previous paragraphs, and turn the last one into what the reaction to and opinion of the UN has been, including the Nobel Prize and perhaps one other specific example.

 Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I'd change the name of the 'Organisation' section to 'Structure.' Calling the UN an organisation and then having a heading called Organisation means it's the organisation of an organisation which is kind of confusing.

 Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Section on UNGA voting should be changed. I was confused about the 'important question' thing so I found the rules of procedure here [1] and the matters that require a two-thirds vote are specifically spelled out. I would just use that list, and take out the thing about important questions. Reading this makes me think an article for UN rules of procedure would be helpful.

 Done, sort of. I'm not sure what you mean about "the thing about important questions" -- "important questions" is the exact description from the rules of procedure you cited, as well as the secondary source I consulted. But I don't mind including the full detail from the rules of procedure in a footnote. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Security Council section uses 'member governments' which I don't think I've ever heard as a term in the context of the UN. Better to use member states to remain consistent.

 Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Secretary-General has to be recommended by the UNSC, "where the permanent members have veto power" - this is redundant since it was stated in the UNSC section.

Since this is only a few words, I'd prefer to leave it. Not everyone reads the full article from top to bottom, and this is an important point. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

UNGA can 'theoretically override' - confusing.

 Done This sentence doesn't really seem to be needed in the top level article, actually, since this power has never been used. We're having enough trouble fitting in the powers that have been. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Specialised institutions should be changed to 'Specialised Agencies' to be consistent with the link to the list below the section heading.

 Done -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Should Group 77 be in the Membership section? Seems out of place.

While perhaps not perfect, I think it's as logical a spot as we're likely to find. It's an important bloc of members. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have to stop for now but I'll be back later, hope the comments help kaireky (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

That's really helpful, thanks. I'll try to implement these changes in the next few days. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Responded to the above concerns--thanks again, Khazar2 (talk) 12:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Link to reference 66 is broken, I went to change it but I'm not auto confirmed yet (silly thing) but I found a page with the same information that can be linked to instead [2] kaireky (talk) 17:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)