Jump to content

Talk:De Vloek

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:De Vloek/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 00:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


@Mujinga:, starting this GA review. Please use the  Done, Strikethrough, or some other format of indicating a problem has been resolved.

Lead

[edit]
  • 'when a political struggle over the eviction began' Be more specific on what happened
    The article goes into depth later on and this is not reflected in the lead
    expanded
  • '...the Scheveningen Pier was briefly occupied' Highlight the relevance of this point (say it was in protest), this sentence seems out of place without context.
    done Mujinga (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Activities

[edit]
  • 'Carrying on from De Blauwe Aanslag' Was De Vloek occupied as a direct result/action of De Blauwe Aanslag? The current sentence implies this but is still unclear.
  • 'decided to tolerate the occupation' Why?
    • the quote says "The policy of the Municipality of The Hague with regard to temporarily vacant real estate offers the possibility to temporarily loan buildings to cultural initiatives, for example under certain conditions" so i'll add they saw it as a cultural project Mujinga (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'hundreds of people' Specify if this was hundreds of squatters or members of the public who were attending

Eviction

[edit]
  • 'break clause' Link or define this.
  • ' they announced the Vloek' Who announced? The squatters I assume.
    • "Other Vloek participants" which is the subject of the previous sentence. I'm hesitant to say "the squatters" since some went the legal path and some decided to resist the eviction
  • ' paint bombs' link
    • not seeing a link?
  • 'They placed a shipping...' Who?
  • 'also requesting a fine for a fifth person' Clarify.
    • not sure how to clarify, since the source says "Tegen een vijfde verdachte werd alleen een geldboete geëist." = "Only a fine was demanded against a fifth suspect."
  • Any follow-up on what happened to the building afterward?

Images

[edit]
  • No issues noted with the images. A reverse image search of the graffiti only finds the Flickr image online. Fair use rationale is given.

Copyvio check

[edit]
  • Earwig check has found nothing.

Sources

[edit]
  • No dead links detected
  • Sources 1 and 5 are repeat citations with different cited quotes. Looks good, even if slightly unorthodox.
  • A bit of translating has been done, and sourcing looks good at face value. I can't determine if every source is reliable, as I don't know what the Dutch wiki's criteria are for reliability, but I'll take it on good faith.

Overall

[edit]
  • Thanks for taking this on, should be able to reply to comments later today or tomorrow. Mujinga (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was fun working through the comments; I think I've answered everything now - Mujinga (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Mujinga: Perfect. I went ahead and did a bit of clarifying work on my own. Genuinely surprised that 'paint bomb' doesn't have its own article. I'll give the article one final pass before signing off on it, well done.
GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
    Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
    Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    Yes
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Yes
  6. 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):
    All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Did you know nomination

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(
)

Created by Mujinga (talk). Self-nominated at 17:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough

Policy compliance:

Hook eligibility:

  • Cited: Yes
  • Interesting: Yes
  • Other problems: Yes
QPQ: Done.
Overall: This is ready for promotion. On a side note, it's disappointing that the Het Nieuwe Instituut hook was changed in that way after I promoted the hook as-is. SL93 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC) SL93 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:De_Vloek&oldid=1206905951"