Talk:Attack on Kennedy Road/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

Reviewer: Serial Number 54129 (talk · contribs) 16:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at this in a day or two. SN54129 16:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks for taking it on Mujinga (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Suggest a citation for the attack being called a pogrom in RS as a possible WP:WTW.
changed Mujinga (talk) 10:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it verifiable with no original research?
A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
Kerry Chance is a 32-page report rather than a book; while not intrinsically unreliable, who is she and is the fact that it was published by a presumably reputable academic press sufficient to get it over the edge? Also, am not sure about Scoop.co.nz, and have asked elsewhere. I'll say now, though, that unless it's a resounding no from those chaps, since it's only been used a couple of times, I'll happily accept it. I'd ignore it completely on those grounds usually, but the claims it is referencing are pretty strong.
Everything else looks generally OK—university presses, reputable news outlets, peer-reviewed hournals etc—but FYI, if you do take this further, with the closer scrutiny they might receive, sources such as Des informémonos and Western Cape Anti-Eviction Campaign might be questioned as to neutrality.
Again, a comprehensive treatment isn't necessary for GA, but further on you might want to mine Hall et al.'s Learning and education for a better world : the role of social movements (available at the Internet Archive; also Bryant has a lengthy piece in Alexander & Pithouse (eds.), Yonk 'indcnvo umzabalazo uyasivumela: New work from Durban (Durban, 2006) is probably essential.
Formatting: Tissington needs location of publisher.
Chance is now an anthropologist and has published the book on U of Chicago press which is also cited, so she can probably be considered a subject area expert. Mujinga (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for asking at RSN, we can see if anyone else replies Mujinga (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Think we can take it that scoop.nz is OK then.

Saying this makes me realize the book refs are [edit: NOT] page-cited! So I'll sort that out Mujinga (talk) 10:25, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
done Mujinga (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the extra source suggestions!

Fixed Tissington

Stopping for now Mujinga (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

C. It contains no original research:

D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
Neither google nor Earwig indicate any major close paraphrasing issues.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Is it neutral?
It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Is it stable?
It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
N/A; are none are available, even with a FUR?
Hall

AbM banner

Had another look around, didn't find much. The article on Kennedy Road, Durban has a location map I could add I suppose. It also has a picture of a hall, which might be the hall in question, but we don't know for sure. And there is a pic of an AbM banner. Mujinga (talk) 10:30, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the map would be of intrinsic use; the other two less so? The hall not, if we don't think it's the same one, and the banner if it's a different protest?
Agreed on map, I'll add it Mujinga (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Passing now, as everything above is done and there's plenty of time for that below. Great article. Ping me to the FAC :) SN54129 14:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the careful review and the additional comments! Mujinga (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

For the future. Also, I did a light copy-edit; feel free to reverse anything you disagree with. Particularly as I am not expert in SAEng.

Annoying—although not your fault!—that we haven't got an article for Bush knife to link to.
- i found a source talking about pangas and sjamboks Mujinga (talk) 14:35, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An estimated 10,000 people live at Kennedy Road - but what was the population then?
- good point, the source is actually from 2009, so clarified Mujinga (talk) 10:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
with an Abahlali BaseMjondolo youth camp - "AbM youth camp" Also note u/c B).
- done Mujinga (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The mob's motives for attack the settlement could certainly do with some more detail, possibly as part of a contextual ==Background== section; at the moment, the only reason given for the attack is that AbM was anti-Zulu.
- I'm making a note to look into the sources again Mujinga (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
three-year-old daughter - 3-year-old, per MOS:SPELL09.
- couldn't actually see the justification in MOS but happy to change Mujinga (talk) 11:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, it was just the Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words.
Hopw many residents were at the youth hall? (Note that a misreading of the lead section could imply that about 1,013 people were in there!)
- I'm making a note to look into the sources again here and for the two points directly below Mujinga (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did the police arrive at the same time as the fifty men?
Did the attack affect the film that was being made? I assume so, but if so, something in the reactions/legacy section perhaps?
If Zikode wasn't present, should we be unsurprised that they escaped being killed?
- yes! that sentence wasn't quite working so removed the phrase Mujinga (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:NUMERAL again :) "but 13 members of AbM were arrested and charged with murder. Eight were granted bail and 5 were remanded".
- must've already fixed this Mujinga (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where was Zuma heckled?
- source doesn't say Mujinga (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
were COPE members and that they had been killed by ANC members - can the latter "members" be avoided to save repetition? (Just as an example, we often refer to "IRA men" as well as "IRA members".
- rephrased Mujinga (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting, the correlation between Zulus and the ANC; suggest further explanation via footnote.
- will have to read into this, the Chance book def talks about it Mujinga (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Who were these stakeholders and why were they unrepresentative? (By the way, perhaps criticised over condemned, per WTW again.)
support of the twelve AbM members - "in their support"; you've just told us there were 12. Also, suggest "in which he hoped..."
"All 12 were charged..."
with the rest standing trial for - suggest "accused of"; all of them are on trial, not just those on attempted rather than actual murder.
- done Mujinga (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll want to clarify precisely why the repeated delays to the hearing indicated politicisation; I kind of know what you're getting at—that they kept stalling while pressure was brought to bear on witnesses, for example—but it could be more explicit.
- noted Mujinga (talk) 12:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Link United Nations special rapporteur.
- done Mujinga (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
was thrown out of court - just "thrown out", you could condense to.
- done Mujinga (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're inconsistent whether you place Kennedy 12 in quotes or not. Would advise against it, as it's not a quote.
- done Mujinga (talk) 10:07, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would suggest subsequent over consequent.
- sure! Mujinga (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding parenthesised ellipses, check with WP:... to ensure MOS compliance, specifically, are they mak[ing] clear that it isn't original to the material being quoted?
- changed Mujinga (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Amnesty can lose its International after the first usage in the body (as indeed you do in the lead.)
- good point Mujinga (talk) 11:31, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The final quote should use {{blockquote}} as it is over 40 words, per MOS:BQ.
- done Mujinga (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the GA stuff is in the boxes above; this is more for future reference. SN54129 16:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.