Wikipedia

Talk:Attack on Kennedy Road/Archive 1

< Talk:Attack on Kennedy Road
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Mujinga in topic GA Review
Archive 1
Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Attack on Kennedy Road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Attack on Kennedy Road. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:00, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Fringe and unencyclopedic

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

There are numerous violent incidents in South Africa, and I remain unconvinced that this article meets WP:GNG. The organisation at the centre of this incident has a very limited presence outside of Wikipedia, and there seem to be violations of WP:UNDUE, WP:FRINGE and WP:NOTNEWS here. Park3r (talk) 05:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Park3r perhaps you could argue this event was not in itself particularly notable but the ensuing courtcase and the international coverage certainly mean it meets WP:GNG. You already nominated this article for deletion in 2018 and other editors pointed out its notability then. I do agree that the article could be in better shape and I'll work on it a bit now. So I've removed the notability tag and also the COI tag, it's not clear to me who you mean but if someone has a COI it should be discussed here.
By the way, I've noticed you have been tagging pages recently and you probably didn't mean it that way but it comes across as tagbombing, since for example adding lots of tags to the lead at Abahlali baseMjondolo is not needed since the information was already cited in the article below per MOS:CITELEAD and you didn't complete the merge request on informal housing and shanty town, then someone else did it for you. 16:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)~~
The merge proposal is unrelated to this issue.Park3r (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Title concerns

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article title seems to be a WP:NEO. I would suggest something along the lines of Kennedy Road violence (September 2009) Park3r (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Going by the sources, the present title seems fine per WP:COMMONNAME. Mujinga (talk) 11:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

Latest comment: 2 years ago34 comments2 people in discussion

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Attack on Kennedy Road/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

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

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

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article is in decent shape, but it needs more work before it becomes a Good Article.
  1. 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)
  2. 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)
    Thanks for asking at RSN, we can see if anyone else replies Mujinga (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    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)
    done Mujinga (talk) 11:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for the extra source suggestions!
    Fixed Tissington
    Stopping for now Mujinga (talk) 10:43, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
    C. It contains no original research:  
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:  
    Neither google nor Earwig indicate any major close paraphrasing issues.
  3. 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):  
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:  
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:  
  6. 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)
    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)
  7. 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)
    Thanks for the careful review and the additional comments! Mujinga (talk) 09:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
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.
  • An estimated 10,000 people live at Kennedy Road - but what was the population then?
  • with an Abahlali BaseMjondolo youth camp - "AbM youth camp" Also note u/c B).
  • 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.
  • three-year-old daughter - 3-year-old, per MOS:SPELL09.
  • 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!)
  • 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?
  • MOS:NUMERAL again  :) "but 13 members of AbM were arrested and charged with murder. Eight were granted bail and 5 were remanded".
  • Where was Zuma heckled?
  • 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".
  • Very interesting, the correlation between Zulus and the ANC; suggest further explanation via footnote.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Link United Nations special rapporteur.
  • was thrown out of court - just "thrown out", you could condense to.
  • You're inconsistent whether you place Kennedy 12 in quotes or not. Would advise against it, as it's not a quote.
  • Would suggest subsequent over consequent.
  • 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?
  • Amnesty can lose its International after the first usage in the body (as indeed you do in the lead.)
  • The final quote should use {{blockquote}} as it is over 40 words, per MOS:BQ.
As I said, the GA stuff is in the boxes above; this is more for future reference. SN54129 16:50, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Attack_on_Kennedy_Road/Archive_1&oldid=1078844610"