Wikipedia

Talk:Exodus Collective/GA1

< Talk:Exodus Collective
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Reidgreg in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago47 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Reidgreg (talk · contribs) 16:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply


Review to be forthcoming – Reidgreg (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for taking this on, I should be around in the next days. Mujinga (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
I made some minor copy edit and MOS fixes. If you disagree with any of it, feel free to revert those parts and we can discuss as part of the review. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Criterion

edit
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):  
    A few regional and legal terms could be made more universal or linked. 
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section):   b (citations to reliable sources):   c (OR):   d (copyvio and plagiarism):  
    One unreliable source and one questionable primary source. Citations are particularly weak for the Reformation/Leviticus. Also a bit of close paraphrasing. 
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects):   b (focused):  
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:  
    Minor neutrality regarding alleged police actions not proven in court. 
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:  
  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):  
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:  

Review comments

edit
Prose
  • which had been thrown into a skip is there a more universal term that could be used for skip, or possibly link to skip (container).
  • Soon after the first party Does this refer to the June 1992 party? If so, I think it would be good to state this here so the timing is understood (as the intervening paragraph mentions a new year's party). So "Soon after its first party in June 1992" or similar. Actually, there's close paraphrasing here, see comment under referencing
  • Link affray which might not be universally understood.
  • Link rave on first mention in lead and body.
  • link housing benefit
  • the local radio station is reported to have rung the collective to tell them that whilst the event was held "there was not a rioter in sight on the Marsh Farm Estate"
    • Is Is there a more universal term than rung? I realize this paraphrases the source which used "phoned".
    • The phrasing suggests that this is a quote from the actual telephone call, while it is actually a quote from source Wainwright. I suggest paraphrasing the quote. Perhaps: is reported to have informed the collective that there was a complete absence of rioting at the estate during the event.
Referencing & verifiability
  • "mckay"
    • at the trial the police were unable to offer any evidence The source says that they were unable to produce notebooks (they may have had other evidence) so how about: at the trial the police failed to enter a dozen officer notebooks into evidence
    • Other than the above, everything I was able to check on Google Books was good. I wasn't able to preview every page, though. I added page numbers to the citations that I was able to check.
  • "squalltash"
    • This publication appears to be reliable, and one of its founding editors was commissioned to produce a BBC documentary about Exodus (link).
    • They relaunched their website last year and I found a new url for the story here: https://www.squallmagazine.com/f/f-a-new-deal.html It gives the original publication date of March-April 2000 (apparently a bimonthly), which could be added to the citation.
    • Bedfordshire County Council voted in support of a public inquiry into the police harassment of Exodus. From the source, I think this should be "alleged police harassment" or "police targeting" or "police activities against". (Unless you can provide a source that the inquiry found there was police harassment.)   Confirmed done, good.
    • adopting "Movement of Jah People" as their slogan. While 'movement of Jah people' is mentioned, it does not explicitly say that this is their slogan. Not4Rent page 84 or "leviticus" could be added.
  • "Enemy"
    • This source does not specifically identify HAZ Manor as the name/location of the Exodus commune residence. If you can't find another source, I'd suggest using {{cite episode}} and citing the primary source, or otherwise rephrase.
  • Not4Rent
    • This seems to be a small publisher, but looks reliable to me and is consistent with other sources on the subject.
    • (Optional) Source Not4Rent is on Google Books at https://books.google.com/books/about/Not_for_Rent.html?id=aM6iFOa9OscC if you want to add the url to the citation. I added page numbers as I verified the citations.
    • Close paraphrasing: Soon after the first party, the collective squatted a warehouse which was then evicted in August. They then occupied Long Meadow Farm, which was owned (but left disused) by the Department of Transport. It was situated next to a motorway which was due to be expanded in 2000. is too similar to the source: "shortly after the first party the group squatted an empty warehouse which got evicted a month later in August '92. The same day as that eviction, the Long Meadow Farm was squatted. This farm, situated next to the motorway, was bought by the Department of Transport as part of a road expansion program, but building work has been postponed until the year 2000."
      • Suggest: The collective had squatted in a warehouse for two months before being evicted in August 1992. They then immediately occupied Long Meadow Farm, a derelict property owned by the Department of Transport, which planned to use part of the land to expand an adjacent motorway in 2000.
    • During the raid, the police had planted £2,000 worth of ecstasy tablets in a bedroom and charged a person with possession. Although the source says this, I think we have to be a little cautious with a criminal matter since the 'planting of drugs' was not proven in court. Perhaps: The police charged one person with possession of £2,000 worth of ecstasy tablets, which author Freek Kallenberg wrote had been planted during the raid.
      • added a Squall reference to back the claim Mujinga (talk) 02:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
        • Added to the end of the sentence Not4Rent page 84 which states that police planted drugs. However, "squalltash" takes a more cautious approach and points out the suspicious nature of the incident through the actions of various parties without saying that the police planted/fabricated evidence, leaving it to the reader to come to their own conclusions. Source "Eley" describes it as a "trumped-up drugs charge" – I feel he's the most reliable of these sources and the short quote will avoid the problem of stating allegations in Wikipedia's voice. (MOS:ALLEGED states alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure that the source of the accusation is clear.)
        • Suggest: Police later stated that they had found £2,000 worth of ecstasy tablets next to a collective member's personal belongings and charged them with possession.(ref "squalltash", Not4Rent p 84) Historian Geoff Eley described this as a "trumped-up drugs charge".(ref "Eley") The case collapsed at trial with police officers giving contradictory statements.(Not4Rent p 84)  ?
    • On 4 January 1993, Exodus supported fourteen homeless people who were squatting a long-empty property in Luton called the Oakmore Hotel. The source says "in the beginning of January '93" but doesn't give a specific date.
      • changed to at the beginning   Confirmed
  • Squall article "Lodging Complaints"
    • url is now here: https://squallmagazine.com/f/f16-33-lodging-complaints.html
    • close paraphrasing: Mrs Jenkins's licence was taken away and she was ordered to pay court costs of £13,000 which had been awarded against her. The pub was closed, but a judicial review of the decision was later made. Compare to source: "Mrs Jenkins' pub licence was taken away, with total court costs of £13,000 awarded against her."
  • wainwright
    • Before that time, another property, a derelict old people's home called St Margaret's Hospice, was occupied. Exodus turned the building into a co-op and community centre, which became known as the Housing Action Zone or HAZ Manor. I found this in the source except for the name St Margaret's Hospice.
  • "lutontowood"
    • This reference confirms that Exodus held a warehouse rave on New Year's 1999/2000, but not the earlier points. I think the other references cover it, though I don't specifically remember "Sandpit" parties at quarries near Clophill.
  • "mixmag" & "conresist"
    • Verified the quote from the first, online at the second.
  • "hansard"
    • Good.
  • "lutonofficial"
    • In August 2000, the collective achieved their aim of holding a licensed rave. The source is dated 2 August 2000, and said that the rave was held on Saturday night. The preceding Saturday was 29 July.
  • "bedstoday"
    • Verified Straw and the 1999 FTS festival, but it would be good to have something to verify the other festivals (1997–2000).
  • "squall"
  • "leviticus" → "LC"
    • building an alternative 'way of life' right here in Luton. as I checked the archive-website from Jan 2011, it says "building an alternative 'way of life' in our home town of Luton."  ?
  • "historynight"
    • This blogspot.com-hosted page seems to be a blog. It should be replaced with a reliable source.
      • historyatnight is written by Neil Transpontine and I would argue he is a subject area expert on UK rave. However this section isn't very strong generally and as you point out the ref isn't backing up the claim. I'll see what else I can find. Mujinga (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Leviticus Collective rose and reformed out of Exodus in March 2008. Between 2008 and 2012, Leviticus hosted club nights (including a monthly event at The Hat Factory), and continues to be involved in local events such as We Are Luton. The closest the source says to any of this is that Leviticus is a successor to Exodus. I suggest looking for a reliable source and rewriting the passage for what you're able to find.
  • http://www.marshfarmoutreach.org.uk/about-marsh-farm-outreach/the-marsh-farm-estate/
    • Primary source. It isn't stating anything controversial, but I'd prefer if a better source could be found.
  • "dunstmarsh"
    • Verified.
  • "C4film1" and "C4film2"

Additional sources:

  • "Eley"
    • Reliable source, good. I added |authorlink=Geoff Eley to the citation.
  • "Rocks"
    • Good, short quote verified.
  • "Mason"
    • Good, but I think a little explanation would help, since Freemasonry isn't mentioned elsewhere in the article. Perhaps tag on something like "since he was a member of the Freemasons, a group which Exodus had publicly criticized."  ?
Media

Fair use rationale for logo, other image is CC licenced.

Other areas to improve

edit

Although not part of the GA criteria, here are some other areas you might want to improve at some point:

  • By the time a third party was held on New Year's Eve 1992, it was estimated to have been attended by 10,000 people. → 1992, attendance was estimated at 10,000 people.
  • would become the most public face of the group would become → became. When you say "would become", it's like you're telling a story, which isn't the right tone for an encyclopedia article. We're summarizing things which happened, so should use past tense. Similarly: would pay rent → paid rent.
    • I think this must be a Brit English thing, because to me it reads fine. I'm not telling the story so much as discussing what was going to happen, from the perspective of it not happening yet, if that makes sense. So Glenn Jenkins was later the spokesperson. would pay their rent is a bit different in meaning, there I am talking about a customary activity, done every month. Mujinga (talk) 02:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • It's fine grammatically and it isn't confusing, so it'd pass GA. It's a picky little FA thing. WP:TONE looks at more serious tone issues (some of which enter into neutrality). With the "would"s, I think it's a little like telling a story or leading the reader in a thought experiment, which you might do in an essay or a textbook but not so much with an encyclopedia. It might help to remember that the goal is to convey the important facts as succinctly as possible.
  • A working farm was set up and it began to hold open days for local schools.[1] It was renamed Long Meadow Community Free Farm and had goats, sheep, chickens, geese and Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs.[4] → Long Meadow Community Free Farm was established, with goats, sheep, chickens, geese, and Vietnamese pot-bellied pigs, and held open days for local schools.[1]
  • with different police officers giving contradictory statements Can remove "different", as this can be assumed.
  • The Oakmore Hotel would be evicted six weeks later in police operation Ashanti, with residents being told they had 30 minutes to leave → Six weeks later, residents of the former hotel were evicted in police operation Ashanti, permitted 30 minutes to vacate.
  • The Woodside Industrial Estate became a regular meeting point for revellers awaiting for information as to the location of parties in the countryside → awaiting specific details for parties in the countryside.
  • Free The Spirit Festival is alternatively styled in italics, single quotes, and plain text. This should preferably be consistent throughout the article. I put it in plain text title case, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Titles § Neither and examples like Expo 2010, Cannes Film Festival, Burning Man, Lollapalooza, etc.
  • Consider paraphrasing some of the long quote in In the aftermath of the 2011 England riots, Jenkins later commented in Red Pepper magazine: "From 1995 onwards we proved that youth diversion works better than police oppression. We stopped the Marsh Farm riot by putting on a dance just outside Luton. We wanted to divert the energy and say, c'mon, let's dance, then let's talk, and then let's build" → In the aftermath of the 2011 England riots, Jenkins told Red Pepper magazine that Exodus had shown at the Marsh Farm riot how "youth diversion works better than police oppression. ... We wanted to divert the energy and say, c'mon, let's dance, then let's talk, and then let's build."
  • In 1997, and for the next three years afterwards → From 1997 to 2000
  • Might trip [trim] the long quote in Demise, perhaps: ... members of the collective are there on condition of loving these principles that we're on. And all of a sudden if those principles aren't there anymore then ... You can't put your back into it because you would be building something you don't agree with. ... Exodus' activities came to a grinding halt and we had meeting after meeting ... It was like a divorce. We had our arguments. We had rare-ups. And when we realised we couldn't be a family again, then a fair section of the people couldn't stay there and removed themselves.
  • Consider adding |alt= text for the images, such as Gold on black text: Exodus – movement of jah people and Young people gather in front of a stage in a circus tent.
  • Possible future expansion:
    • Squall magazine wrote a lot on Exodus, and some of their other pieces are listed here, if interested for future expansion of the article.
    • If you wanted to write more about Long Meadow Farm, some of the sources put it at 19 or 17 acres, a wedge of land between the motorway and a rail corridor, and that it had been formerly used for dumping refuse – to give a sense of how disused it was and how much the collective had to improve it.
    • It might be good to include more about how the government's Social Exclusion Unit was influenced by Exodus. (Wainwright, page 110)
  • I didn't want to change the reference names and risk confusing the review, but afterwards it might not be a bad idea to name them consistently – whether using double quotes or not, and consistent capitalization. A consistent format might be author-year or publisher-year, or author-title or publisher-title when there are several from the same year (as might be the case with Squall).
    • That's an interesting point about naming references, I would say that since wikipedia is collaborative I would end up correcting other people's reference names as they add them, which doesn't seem a good use of my time. So I'm not really sure if it is practical, also don't see it as best practice really. Having double quotes to be consistent I can get behind a bit more. Anyway, it's an interesting thing to ponder, thanks for raising it. Mujinga (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
      • There's nothing terribly wrong about it, but if you're overhauling an article or doing a major expansion, that's a good time to perform reference cleanup. I've seen some articles (not this one) where reference names became confusing.

General discussion

edit

Nice article; I enjoyed learning about this group. I think this should be able to pass GA with a little work, though referencing the Reformation section may be difficult. I'll put the review "on hold" while you work on it, and will try to be available for questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the detailed review and copy edit. I've got a few plates spinning right now but should be able to go through things on Tuesday if not before. Mujinga (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hiya I've got quite far along with the responses but I'm not done yet. I should have time later on to finish them off, so I can ping you then, of course if you want to reply to anything in the meantime then please do. Mujinga (talk) 02:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Hi Reidgreg I've now answered everything I hope. I went down a bit of a wormhole trying to find out if the inquiry had ever actually taken place, which threw up some more information on other points as well. Mujinga (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Mujinga: Thanks, I've reviewed the changes, lots of improvements there. I've marked three places with  ? where my comments need to be addressed. I believe that only other thing is to tweak the section headers. I was thinking perhaps renaming: Formation → History, or History and advocacy, or something else suitably broad to cover that section's contents (I like the section layout, btw). And if you wanted to, Dissolution → Dissolution and legacy, though I feel that the first big section is more important. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
i like the  ? system! i'll get to this today or tomorrow Mujinga (talk) 09:28, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
@Reidgreg: Thanks for the suggestions, the article is better for them. I have responded on the three comments. On the sections, I was also thinking about that, so I've kept /Formation/ but split off most of it into /History/ and I've moved the Mixmag quote up since it's more about history than parties. Mujinga (talk) 19:43, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Excellent. All of my points have been addressed, so I'm passing this review. Cheers! – Reidgreg (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)Reply
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Exodus_Collective/GA1&oldid=951693888"