Talk:Death of Milton King

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Caribbean: Barbados Low‑importance

	Caribbean portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caribbean, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the countries of the Caribbean on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.CaribbeanWikipedia:WikiProject CaribbeanTemplate:WikiProject CaribbeanCaribbean articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Barbados (assessed as Low-importance).

Discrimination Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

South Africa Low‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death of Milton King is currently a World history good article nominee. Nominated by SunTunnels (talk) at 04:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

An editor has indicated a willingness to review the article in accordance with the good article criteria. Further reviews are welcome from any editor who has not contributed significantly to this article (or nominated it), and can be added to the review page, but the decision whether or not to list the article as a good article should be left to the first reviewer.

Short description: 1951 police killing that sparked international anti-apartheid protests

Apartheid sidebars

Latest comment: 2 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I see you've got two different apartheid sidebars on this article, but the article itself isn't in either of them. It isn't in Category:Apartheid either. Typically, you only want nav templates on an article if it's actually in the template - have a look at WP:SIDEBAR for some guidance. You can add the article to the templates yourself if you think it belongs there. If you're not sure if this article belongs in any of those, you might be able to get opinions from interested editors by posting on the talk pages of the templates in question. -- asilvering (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the advice, I’ll look into that. SunTunnels (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

GA Review

Latest comment: 16 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

This review is transcluded from Talk:Death of Milton King/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SunTunnels (talk · contribs) 04:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 02:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I will be reviewing this article soon. Looks interesting! Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi @Alexeyevitch, thank you very much for reviewing this article! I haven't been through this process before, so please feel free to let me know when I should be editing the article in accordance with feedback, policies, etc. Thanks. SunTunnels (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

No problem! take your time, I understand this is your first GAN, the relevant criteria is here. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 20:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)Reply

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	I notice that the suffix -ise is inconsistent. A South African-related article should use South African English. See MOS:TIES.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	As per WP:SYNTH and MOS:OP-ED, it sometimes isn't needed to include words like however, though, although, furthermore. Sometimes it's OK if the content is mentioned in the source, but if it isn't it may be seen as slight editorializing. This is something to keep in mind when editing.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	(some sources place the café on Dock Road) I think using an WP:EXPLNOTE would be better here, (if required, add additional sources which mention the café on Dock Road). Apart from that, the ref layout is good.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Ref 5 is WP:THESIS, I will look in to this later. Articles should rely on secondary sources as much as possible. Burdened by race: Coloured identities in southern Africa appears to be an ebook, hence why it should use Template:Citebook What is eisa.org.za and what makes it a reliable source?
	2c. it contains no original research.	No uncited content. I don't have access to the book sources and sources with no links but I'm asuming good faith... I will begin the check soon.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig spots no copyvio issues.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable with no edit wars, content disputes, etc.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Y
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Y
	7. Overall assessment.

Add topic