Talk:Obligation to Negotiate Access to the Pacific Ocean/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 01:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
The article satisfies the required sections of MoS. After a good bit of copyediting for punctuation and redundancy, it is now at an acceptable prose standard for GA.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
The article has a reference section and citations to published sources. I don't see any sign of plagiarism from online sources; all the matches on Earwig's tool are to stock phrases and direct quotations. ~~It would really be better if all of the citations were fully filled in, with e.g. authors' names and publication dates, but it isn't required for GA.~~ The online sources appear to support the broad substance of the article and most of the details; I'll have to AGF on the offline and paywalled journals.

If anything, the article threatens to be a bit over-cited, with multiple sources saying substantively the same thing after many claims. A particular example: the VOA source cited in the first paragraph of "Background" doesn't appear to support the main idea of the sentence it's attached to (it doesn't say anything about the Treaties of Ancón or Valparaíso) or to add anything not covered in the other citations on that sentence, and it isn't cited elsewhere in the article, so I think it should be removed.

Infobox court case has parameters for things like "citations of reports of the case" and "transcripts of the case", and it's possible that some of those things are to be had on the ICJ's page for this case, but I honestly don't understand what exactly a "law report" is well enough to figure out where the ICJ's are to be found. If it looks to you like anything on the ICJ page serves the purposes that those infobox parameters are meant for, then please add it in the appropriate place; if you understand what they're for, and the ICJ documents aren't it, then the infobox is good as is!

The claims about Judge Gaja's dissent in the determination of jurisdiction and the scope of the case would be better supported if links were added to the citations; I believe those primary documents are available on the ICJ page linked above.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article achieves broad coverage of the topic, addressing the major aspects of the case (the historical background of the dispute, previous efforts to negotiate a settlement, the petition and finding of jurisdiction, the arguments and outcome, and reactions from the parties to the case). It generally maintains focus on the topic, not straying into excessive tangential detail; my one concern is the sentence in the "Outcome" section about the parallel ICJ case regarding the Silala River. While it's curious that Bolivia and Chile were simultaneously engaged in another case before the same court, I'm not sure I see what further insight into this case that fact gives. Did the fact of the other case somehow influence the proceedings or outcome of this one? If not, then that sentence should probably be removed.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The article generally maintains an appropriately neutral perspective on the dispute, not advocating for the views or interests of either party, except perhaps in the paraphrases of opinions from "Zach Kleiman" and "Alonso Dunkelberg", which seem to generally favor Bolivia's perspective (claiming that earlier ICJ precedent is favorable to Bolivia's petition, claiming that Bolivia could have brought other complaints under the Treaty of Peace and Friendship). Is there reason to believe that these two people's views are representative of broad legal analysis of this case? If there are significant views to the contrary, then I think we probably need to give them some space, too, if these opinions are to be included in the article.
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The map of the territorial outcomes of the War of the Pacific has an appropriate license and is relevant and helpful; ~~it would be much more informative with a more helpful caption that indicated what the various shadings and the black boundary mean.~~
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
An interesting topic! ~~My source review will be here in the next couple of days.~~ -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 19:42, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for taking this review and the work, especially copy-editing that you have already done! I will work on the citations and improve the caption this weekend. It's been a while since I did my research, but if I recall correctly, their opinions were representative of the broader literature. However, I may need to improve the tone in those sections. StudiesWorld (talk) 01:31, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The source review is done! There's not much here that needs doing to get the article to the GA standard. I'm putting this on hold, and the nominator can address the remaining issues as he/she's able. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@StudiesWorld: Checking in: do you think you will be able to work on this soon? -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bryanrutherford0, sorry, I've been rather busy, but I should have availability to work on this on Wednesday. If not, I will let you know and will understand if you fail it, due to your own time constraints. StudiesWorld (talk) 22:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bryanrutherford0 I have gone ahead and linked and cleaned up the citations and added a citation and transcript link to the Infobox. Eventually, there will be a citation for the full case, but I can't yet find one, so it probably hasn't been issued yet. With regards to the Silala River case, I included mention of it because they were mentioned together in reliable source, but I have no reason to believe that it influenced this case. Do you think that it should be included for this reason? Regarding the legal analyses, I think that they don't completely favor Bolivia's perspective, but I think that they are generally representative of the scholarship. Finally, I improved the caption. I have omitted mention of the green shading because it was related to a separate dispute, but if you think it would be more clear if included, I can add a mention. If there is anything that I have forgotten or anything else you think it needs, please let me know. Thanks, StudiesWorld (talk) 19:56, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'm not seeing any insight into this case that's offered by knowledge of the Silala River case, so I do think that sentence should go. If you believe that the commentary on the case and judgments currently included is representative of the literature, then it may stand. My only other comment relates to the links added to the infobox: the "Citations" entry is quite long; is there some standard way of condensing it, like those produced by Template:Law report? Then, the transcript of the oral proceedings could use some text for the link, like Oral Proceedings or whatever you think is appropriate. Almost there! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bryanrutherford0, I have addressed these concerns. I wasn't sure about the citation because I'm not aware of a shorter style, but I have abbreviated it such that it still contains enough information to be unambiguous. Thanks again, StudiesWorld (talk) 23:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That will do it! With all my concerns satisfactorily addressed, this article now meets the standard and is approved for GA. A pleasure working with you, StudiesWorld! -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 01:11, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]