Talk:Genocide/GA1

GA review

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

Nominator: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 06:28, 8 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vacant0 (talk · contribs) 14:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. Considering that it's a complex topic and holidays are just around the corner, this might take me a few weeks. But I'll try to complete this by the end of the year. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:08, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Some preliminary comments for now, before I dive in deeper.

What is the reliability of EJIL: Talk!? I don't have doubts about the reliability of other sources - books appear to be from reputable publishers, journals are peer-reviewed, while TC and TG are reputable news organisations.
- It's the academic blog of the European Journal of International Law, with legal academics serving as its editors. (t · c) buIdhe 16:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Optional nitpick: some publishers are wikilinked, some are not. If you plan on taking this to FAC (which would be great), you should make this consistent throughout the article.
1. Another nitpick - use {{sfnm}} where applicable.
There are too many images.

I'll continue once the first and third comments get resolved. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:21, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for reviewing. I'm not in a hurry so take your time, but could you be more specific about which images do you think fail MOS:IMAGEREL? (t · c) buIdhe 16:52, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- On another look, I'll withdraw that comment. I thought that the Methods section had three images, that's why. There does not appear to be any issues in regards to MOS:IMAGEREL. All of the sections are short, so one to two images per section is, in my opinion, enough. I'll now continue reviewing this article. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start from the body and then come back to the lede to check whether everything is properly sourced. After finishing the article, I'll take another look to see if there is any missing context. If you want to reply, please do it under each bullet point. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article uses American English spelling. Therefore, there are occurances of false titles throughout the article.
Is there a reason why genocide is italicised in the first sentence of the Origins section?
"As a law student, his interest in the subject was initially sparked by the Armenian genocide" – from what I get, he is also the founder of the subject?
"to the publisher" – should we mention the publisher in this case? are they relevant to the article?
"Lemkin's proposal" what did he propose? I would briefly mention this in a sentence or two.
wikilink mass slaughter.
wikilink Nazi criminality.
Nuremberg trials seem to be wikilinked twice within the same section. Same goes for International Criminal Court.
"The powers prosecuting the trial were unwilling to restrict a government's actions against its own citizens" why?
"Some of the most powerful states in the world, such as the United States, China, India, Russia, and Turkey, have not joined" why?

So far, these are mostly nitpicks as I was not able to find any major issues within these two sections. The article reads well so far. I'll continue the review in a few days. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]