Talk:International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page.

Reviewers: To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.)

Date: 13:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Peer review International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
48px} This article is part of WikiProject Human rights, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Human rights 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 contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the assessment scale.


I changed "Congress" to "Senate" since the House of Representatives has no role in the ratification of treaties.

Do we really need the list of non-parties now that we have a map? IdiotSavant (talk) 10:22, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I would say yes - not everyone knows countries by sight. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 00:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] GA nomination

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)