I am failing this article under criteria number one and three of WP:GAFAIL. Here are some of the issues I see in the article just from a quick skim:
The entirety of the Jurisdiction, Appeals, and People sections are cited to primary sources.
There is a significant amount of scholarship on the tribunal that the article fails to cover. (See, for example, this Google Scholar search) One source, for example, provides a detailed in-depth level of history on the tribunal; this article provides two sentences on the history of the tribunal. The same is the case with the criticism section, which does not adequately cover the subject matter.
The lede does not adequately summarize the content of the article.
The article needs a large amount of copyediting:
There are spaces between full stops and citations
There are one sentence paragraphs that need to be expanded or merged
The article uses a significant number of simple sentences that make the prose feel choppy and difficult to read. Examples include the lede and this uncited sentence: The vast majority of decisions are dealt on paper only. This means only a small percentage of cases submitted to the Tribunal proceed to a hearing in court. The Tribunal is under no duty to hold a hearing.
There is one tag for weasel-word phrasing that is not addressed.
There are multiple sentences that don't meet the GA criteria for in-line citations or are just entirely unsourced. Examples below:
It exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
The role is somewhat comparable to the role of the procurator fiscal in Sheriff Court fatal accident inquiries.
The Tribunal Members are assisted in their work by a Secretariat, who provide administrative support for the Tribunal including investigating complaints as directed by a Tribunal Member.
The IPT was established by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA 2000), replacing the Interception of Communications Tribunal, the Security Service Tribunal, and the Intelligence Services Tribunal.
Paton v Poole Borough Council was a high-profile case of a family who were placed under surveillance by Poole Borough Council in order to investigate claims that the family were not living in the school catchment area which they claimed.
@Dreichh: Sorry this review was quite critical. I hope this assessment is constructive to help improve the article and I encourage you to re-nominate the article once these concerns have been addressed. :3 F4U (they/it) 04:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
