Talk:Boerehaat/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Will have this to you within a day or two ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 20:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

 * Per WP:LEAD, I would de-bold the phrases "The term Boerehater (English: Boer-hater or Boer hater) if they're not relating to the actual name
 * The lead could also be expanded a little in order to summarise the article better. I think that by creating another small paragraph ellaborating on the name's origin and history could easily be accomplished by moving content around the Etymology and origin section
 * "British public for British imperialism and the Second Boer War.[1][5]:34[6][7]" - there's some kind of typo or error there? And also should those citations be more evenly spread to source everything in the paragraph?
 * "the apartheid era.[5]:33–34[13]" - I have never seen this before, upon reading it again it makes me think if this is some sort of page number?
 * "Animosity between the British and the Boers intensified in the run-up to the Second Boer War" - link Second Boer War for reference?
 * ""the historical friction between the 'English- and Afrikaans-speaking" - that hyphen could be removed
 * "In 1973 Edward Feit, then a professor of political science at the University of Michigan" - would read better as just {{xt|In 1973 Edward Feit, professor of political science at the University of Michigan"
 * "The National Party, under the leadership of B. J. Vorster" - whose National Party? Can it be linked?
 * "The Nationalists also used the term to censure members" - who are the Nationalists?
 * I would merge the top two sentences in the Post-apartheid era section to create better flow

On hold
This is a neat, compact article, worthy of becoming GA in my opinion. The only thing that stands in the way at the moment is that the lead could summarise the article better (to reach the GA criteria it has to act as a sort of "mini article") and also some minor prose issues that could be addressed. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and will see what happens. Thanks! ☯ Jag  uar  ☯ 12:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your review . I use Template:Rp to specify pages when referencing different pages in a source, it is not a typo. Please let me know if you are happy with the changes I have made. Helen  Online  21:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Close - promoted
Thank you for your quick response, upon looking at the changes made this article now meets the GA criteria. Promoting ☯  Jag  uar  ☯ 16:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)