Talk:Calais Jungle/GA1

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

Reviewer: Bungle (talk · contribs) 12:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll do a review of this article. I will aim to post within 7 days though it may well be sooner as as I have already started to make notes. Bungle (talk • contribs) 12:43, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah great news, thanks for the ping - I am generally around in March so would hope to reply to anything in a reasonably timely manner Mujinga (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Review
Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Lead

 * "There had been other camps known as jungles in previous years" - Does this mean all the previous camps where also the "Calais Jungle"? What makes this Jan15 - Oct16 camp different?
 * yes any land squat in the area over a number of years became known as a 'jungle', but this one became internationally known as the Calais Jungle because of its size and because of the furore around its eviction - it wouldn't hurt to add something to that effect, i added a bit to the location section Mujinga (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "known by the authorities as Camp de la Lande" - I don't see why this needs a lead mention (and unexplained)
 * this ties in a bit to the first point, the Calais Jungle is certainly the common name but it was also known by the state as la Lande as a way to distinguish it from other camps Mujinga (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't see why this needs lead mention, nor is it explained in the prose still. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * i responded on this point below Mujinga (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "The French Government" - probably lowercase government in this context (unless it was the Government of France)
 * yeah it's the state, wikilink added Mujinga (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "decided to evict it" - evict "it"? What/who is "it"? Does this mean evict the camp (which wouldn't make much sense), or the inhabitants?
 * i'm taking "it" as referring to the camp, more precisely back to "this new jungle" in the previous clause, which seems fine to me in terms of sense since places (squats, houses etc) can get evicted, but happy to rewrite for clarity, i can do this at the end when restructuring the lead Mujinga (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "in 2016" - Was the decision made in 2016, or was the action taken then, having been decided previous to this?
 * yup it was made in 2016 after some legal battles Mujinga (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The lead is very short in proportion to the rest of the article. Two small paragraphs does not give an overview of the article or a brief intro to many of the sections
 * i agree it is quite short as per MOS:LEADLENGTH if it's ok i'll come back to this last, since I feel like the best time to rewrite the lead is when everything else is already sorted Mujinga (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * i've now expanded the lead Mujinga (talk) 16:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Location/name

 * "The shanty town" - Is it a jungle, refugee/migrant encampment or a shanty town?
 * it's all these things. known by residents as the jungle, it was a refugee/migrant encampment and it fits the shanty town definition. anyway, i've rewritten the sentence so hopefully it reads better Mujinga (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "located on the eastern edge" - Is it the north-eastern edge?
 * reference only says east Mujinga (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Although the map location shows this was a north-eastern camp. Not a GA fail, as "eastern" is in itself not erroneous. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * i see what you mean but the ref quoted below only says "eastern borders" Mujinga (talk) 12:08, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "It was known by the French authorities as the Camp de la Lande" - Why? What does that mean and/or translate to?
 * hopefully this is a bit clearer now. the French state knew about and tolerated this encampment, calling it by that name Mujinga (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I still don't understand what the term actually means though. It's still a standalone sentence without explanation. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ok so here's what the ref says:

This book reconstructs and revisits some of what emerged at the place that was known, for a year and a half between March 2015 and October 2016, as the Camp de la Lande. This was the controversial and euphemistic name used by the French authorities for the site of the ‘Jungle’, as it existed as a ‘tolerated’ encampment on the eastern borders of Calais, less than half a kilometre from the Port of Calais and adjacent to the Rocade Est ring road (N216) that takes lorries and cars to the Ferry Terminal.
 * so basically the common name became the calais jungle and is reflected in the title of the article, but the authorities named it Camp de la Lande both as a way to exert power and to differentiate it from other jungles of which there were many. so my previous point was that i do think this name also needs mentioning becuase it's possible people come to wikipedia searching on that name. but yes it doesn't have to be in the lead i suppose if you don't think it needs to be Mujinga (talk) 12:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added context about the name Lande - i.e., this was the camp's official name that was chosen to refer to the site's location and geography. --Woofboy (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "The use of the word 'jungle' is thought.." - The word itself is so well known in English language that I don't think it needs explaining?
 * agreed, but the use of it to describe land squats is curious, so i have clarified Mujinga (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "in a Seveso zone on polluted land (regulated by Directive 82/501/EC)" - can we not add "regulated" into the sentence and wikilink it to the "Directive" article? An example may be: "The jungle was on wasteland in a Seveso regulated zone on polluted land". You could choose where the "regulated" word works best
 * yes that sentence was a bit ugly, i've rephrased Mujinga (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "To solve this issue" - What exactly is the "issue" being referred to? The camp's existance, the migrant numbers, the fact is was on polluted land, or something else?
 * yes that sentence seemed a bit orphaned, removed Mujinga (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The section doesn't really explain *why* is was referred to as a jungle in the first place, even in the earlier camps as mentioned in the lead.
 * i hope this is now made much more clear Mujinga (talk) 21:33, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Background

 * "A reception facility" - Was it a reception facility (which I interpret as being a point of arrival/admittal/admission base) or another camp in its own right, as the ref suggests?
 * it was a hangar, added a better ref - http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/37750368/the-history-of-the-calais-jungle-camp-and-how-its-changed-since-1999 < this gives a good overview actually Mujinga (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "named Sangatte" - Was it "named" Sangatte or was it just located there, seeing as its an actual place and not just name of a facility
 * yes it was called Sangatte after the place where it was Mujinga (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "The original jungle had been established in the woods around the Port" - I think this could be used or mention on the "Location/Name" section as it may offer a reason as to how it gained the "jungle" moniker when first established
 * i took out "original" since there have been other jungles, and I've explained this above Mujinga (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * What about the rather large 5 year period between September 09 and September 14? The article jumps 5 years but there is no information as to events or camps between this time
 * the background section is establishing the context behind the jungles, then we move to discussing the article subject, which was founded in 2014. i think the postSangatte jungle and the Calais Jungle received the most attention and resulted from increased numbers of migrants entering the Calais area Mujinga (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think 5 years is a long time to not cover at all though. Surely events may have happened pertaining to the build up of where the article then picks up from? Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * as i said elsewhere, the BBC overview article also jumps five years. i think it's because in the interim period there were many smaller jungles which the police were quick to evict, i can try to find a reference to that effect. maybe has an opinion here? Mujinga (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I know little about the camps before the one demolished in Oct. 2016. Perhaps for now the context section could repeat, with a reference, a sentence similar to the one in the opening about how there were various other camps during this period. --Woofboy (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * thanks Woofboy, i'm looking into the sources but i think it might be hard to find more details. the sentence in the lead is based on a sentence in the location section which is referenced by this - Lande: the Calais 'Jungle' and Beyond. Bristol University Press. 22 May 2019. p. 2. ISBN 978-1-5292-0618-0. Archived from the original on 27 April 2019. Retrieved 3 May 2019. (this book is available as a free pdf btw). everything in the lead is referenced further down in the article.Mujinga (talk) 13:12, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a sentence to try to hint at the time between 2009 and 2014, with a reference (the source itself says little about this time - perhaps there's little on the period). Hopefully it'll do for now. --Woofboy (talk) 14:07, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure about the quotes in the context section, about "Many had paid smugglers to get them to Calais" (also, I feel the "many" in that sentence needs support). The quotes are about people leaving Egypt or entering Italy, not to get to Calais. --Woofboy (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * yeah i see what you mean, i took out that clause, but i do think karim's story is relevant becuase he came to calais from egypt via italy. Mujinga (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Perhaps something slightly reduced, like this, might suffice: "Some migrants in the area have paid smugglers - sometimes thousands of pounds - to help them on their journey and/or to help them attempt to reach the UK"? --Woofboy (talk) 14:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Occupation

 * "known by the authorities as Camp de la Lande" - I don't think we need to mention this again, repetitively. It can be covered in the "name" section as above.
 * removed Mujinga (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The article suggests estimated population to be 6000 in Nov15, but then between 3700-5500 in Feb16. As this was still months before it was demolished, is there a known reason why the population went down against the historical trend? Prior to this, all the figures seemed to show gradual increases
 * all estimates are quite fuzzy since it was a very precarious situation and people were constantly crossing to the UK, getting deported back to where their fingerprints had been taken (per the Dublin Regulation) or sadly dying in some cases. I imagine the disparity could be explained by the figures coming from different media outfits (maybe the economist inflated its stat) or indeed by changes in the European migrant crisis Mujinga (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ah just found this from October 2015 - "The number of refugees and migrants at the “jungle” has doubled over the past three weeks to 6,000, the vast majority of whom hope to eventually reach Britain." Mujinga (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * further on this, whilst numbers can fluctuate i also think the Economist figure of "some 6,000" is referring to all the migrants in Calais not only those in this particular jungle Mujinga (talk) 13:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * That's quite a big difference to initially consider a "disparity". A few hundred, yes fine, but up to a few thousand? With figures, it's either fact or fiction (or estimated, which must be clearly stated) so I think it needs to be clear in this sense. My original point remains a query in the current article state. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * yes lies damned lies and statistics :) i found this source which says (machined translated): "5369 migrants left Calais between November 2015 and August 2016 to be welcomed in France, "explained the Pas-de-Calais prefecture in August." By spring 2016, the number of migrants had thus come back down to 3,500 migrants. "Before reaching again and then surpassing the summits of the summer 2015. so I'll a sentence to clarify this fluctuation Mujinga (talk) 12:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * actually on reflection i'd like to think about this a bit more, since even that new source admits the wild disparity in figures between the numbers given by the state authorities and by migrant solidarity groups. it's just really hard to be accurate here. Mujinga (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The discrepancies during 2016 were recognised by NGOs to result from 'different counting methods and migrants' reluctance to speak to authorities'. I'll add something to that effect. --Woofboy (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ah yes that link's superhelpful, nice one Woofboy Mujinga (talk) 15:51, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I think this article you found, is excellent at explaining the decrease in figures from Nov. 2015 to spring 2016: 'INFOGRAPHIE. L'explosion du nombre de migrants à Calais en un graphique'. I've added a bit to the article using it. Good find! --Woofboy (talk) 23:36, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Could there be a graphical representation of the numbers through key periods, or where sources are available? Maybe a bar chart or some visual aid to show how the numbers grew over time to compliment the prose
 * hmm yes that sounds like it could be helpful, something to ponder

Mujinga (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * i am compiling stats in a table at User:Mujinga/DraftTable-Calais Mujinga (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you forget about this? Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
 * no i didn't forget, i saw this more as an excellent suggestion to improve the article longterm, not a GA pass/fail issue. i have tried making a little graph but it immediately becomes quite political in the choice of what figures to use, since for example the BBC said about the jungle in feb16, "Calais officials say it houses 3,700, while Help Refugees puts it at 5,497" Mujinga (talk) 12:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right in that it isn't a matter of pass/fail, but the issue surrounding the credibility of the figures already mentioned would be a matter of pass/fail. My view is that the figures need to stand up to some degree of scrutiny and thus those deemed credible enough to form part of the prose must surely then be credible for a visual representation. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * i think the best we can do is mention all figures since if in February 2016 the BBC reports that the Calais authorities put the number of people in the camp as 3,700 and Help Refugees says its 5,497, it remains a political choice which figure to say is a correct. personally i would believe more the NGO figure since i don't think they have reason to lie, whereas the authorities clearly (for me) wanted to downplay the size of the camp. however, someone else might say that the NGOs inflated the figures to get more funding and that we should always believe state generated statistics Mujinga (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The section as a whole only covers the period up to Feb16, even though you would have thought it should be the entire period. I also think it perhaps should be a standalone section outside of History and expanded with other occuptional figures from the "eviction of southern sector" section
 * yes i don't think occupation is really the best title. maybe 'numbers' / 'statistics' instead? Mujinga (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
 * i've made this change Mujinga (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Containers

 * "ultimatum to leave the Jungle" - if the container base was within the "calais jungle" encampment, then they wouldn't be leaving the "jungle" (camp) as such, but just relocating within it perhaps? I make this assumption as the section starts with stating "French authorities opened a shelter in the northeastern part of the camp". However, the ref suggests the new camp was "close" to the calais jungle, so there is some contradiction. Besides, it isn't a literal jungle and it wouldn't be capitalised in this context
 * Yeah it's a bit tricky to explain. The French state evicted an area that was previously jungle then constructed the container village in that place and tried to move migrants into it. Hopefully i've made it more clear. Mujinga (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Explains it better now, yes. Slight typo to correct on it but i'll do a full run through as well. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "they would be blocked from going to Britain" - why? Could do with some elucidation. The ref suggests that would be forced to apply for asylum in France but I don't see this mentioned in the section or to explain this sentence
 * Sure added more details Mujinga (talk) 13:03, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ as above. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Eviction (southern)

 * "who threw stone" - plural "stones"
 * fixed, that's a recent error that crept in Mujinga (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Only the first two paragraphs now relate to the eviction operation from early 2016 and rest of the prose here doesn't relate to this specifically. I would suggest either another section split or a rename to take into account the content from the 3rd paragraph onwards. Perhaps also reconsider the section title
 * hmm yes good point - my first thought is that a few paragraphs could be moved up into the stats section, i'll ponder on that Mujinga (talk) 13:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * done Mujinga (talk) 16:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:29, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Facilities

 * "also known as The Eritrean Church, or Ethiopian Church" - the ref says "I wanted to say a prayer in the makeshift Ethiopian church" and "a succession of worshippers – Ethiopian or Eritrean – came in to pray", but it isn't clear whether "Ethiopian Church" is an alternate alias or a church built by/for the Ethiopian inhabitants. Plus, this is the view of the author in news article post, but the article here makes out it is widely known as such (it may have been, but the ref from what I see doesn't suggest this).
 * i've rewritten that so it's closer to the source again Mujinga (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "one of the most recognisable religious buildings in the camp" - feels a bit like an original comment as I don't see this reinforced in the reference
 * agreed, removed Mujinga (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "A number of NGOs" - Who are "NGOs"? Maybe this should be unabbreviated.
 * done Mujinga (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * This section doesn't really belong in a parent "History" section as it doesn't relate to historical events per-se
 * agreed Mujinga (talk) 13:37, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Solidarity

 * "which was shared 60,000 times" - in what timeframe? First week? Month? All-time?
 * source says a few days Mujinga (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * "Libby Freeman, visited Calais" - who is she and why does she deserve a mention? The others are at least known and/or have a wiki article to substantiate noteworthiness
 * she is apparently the founder of Calais Action, do you want me to rewrite? Mujinga (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I'd say this person isn't notable enough to be mentioned. We could end up mentioning every person who set up an aid organisation, even if they are not known. The other people in this section are famous enough to have their own Wikipedia article. --Woofboy (talk) 14:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My initial thought was that as an individual, she doesn't present notability to the same extent as others listed in this section do. Woofboy made a fair comment that she probably isn't the only person to have set up an organisation, and if this could be shown to have had a significant involvement in aid, or indeed vast coverage, then it's a different discussion. I don't feel this can be included. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * i disagree that notability is necessarily established by someone having a wikipedia article about them but Calais Action was the important bit needing mention here not the founder's name so I've deleted it and moved the Calais Action link up together with other NGOs Mujinga (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * While I don't mind its existence, :D in my opinion, Calais Action probably isn't notable (i.e., while it gets mentioned in sources (who doesn't, at some point), it doesn't have articles about it) and shouldn't have its own Wikipedia article. I think it causes a problem for the Calais Jungle article because including it means that nearly any aid organisation that was set up or involved in the Jungle (and there were a lot) should also get a mention, as they are as notable as Calais Action. I'd says its mention needs removing and included in a more general mention of aid organisations is included instead, perhaps with a focus on a notable example or two (e.g., Help Refugees, which has been profiled in news articles, and/or Liz Clegg, who has also been profiled in newspaper (The Independent), the radio (BBC Radio 4) and an academic book (UCL Press)) . --Woofboy (talk) 11:31, 15 March 2020 (UTC) (I edited this because I found a few articles about Calais Action. I still don't think it should get it own specific mention above other associations, however. --Woofboy (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2020 (UTC))
 * I noticed that the reference for Calais Action actually didn't mention the organisation (except in passing in the caption of images), where as one of the other references did, so shifted Calais Action up to that reference. --Woofboy (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * i'm fine with the moving but re-added the ref since i don't see the harm in that section having more refs for groups. i'm not quite sure why help refugees now has a paragraph in this solidarity section? to me that would make more sense with the other NGOs in facilities Mujinga (talk) 19:23, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * As I see it, the solidarity section has been designed to show instances where well known people (e.g., Lilly Allen, Jude Law) got involved to support people living in the Jungle. So, the reference to Help Refugees is primarily about Dawn O'Porter and Lliana Bird arranging a donation and fund-raising campaign that was very successful - that Help Refugees came out of it is just indicative of how successful the drive was. --Woofboy (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, I'm fine with it staying where it is by the way i just didn't really see your logic there. Maybe Bungle has an opinion on it. Mujinga (talk) 13:08, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * "Letters Live.." - which is..?
 * seems to be a group which organises readings of letters worldwide by famous people, in this case Stoppard and Law. again, happy to rewrite if needed Mujinga (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel some elaboration would be helpful, including how this involvement could be considered as "solidarity" (which I don't dispute as such, but would benefit from some clarity). Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've switched the wording around here (putting the famous people first so the weight is on them rather than the more obscure Letters Live) and added a bit more to explain the solidarity. --Woofboy (talk) 20:30, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that! Mujinga (talk) 10:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)


 * As with above section, doesn't belong in History section
 * agreed Mujinga (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I'd say this section should start by mentioning the solidarity shown by local citizens, activists and grassroots aid organisations. I can add this? --Woofboy (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I have observed that the section is partly ordered in date chronological order (to an extent), however as I feel this section should stand alone in its own right (rather than forming part of the chronological history among the other sections), then a reordering would not present an issue. I don't know if it would make any tangible difference, but would not be harmful either. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:21, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

In popular culture

 * I'm not sure about some of the things mentioned in this section. Are they notable enough (we could end up listing everything that's been made about the topic)? Are they "popular culture"? Of the current ones listed, I'd say that The Jungle play is the only one that fits the criteria of being notable and part of popular culture. --Woofboy (talk) 20:40, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple more that I think might qualify more for this section: the film Roads and Ai Weiwei's documentary film Human Flow. --Woofboy (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ah that's cool, i've seen Human Flow but don't remember him being at the jungle. popular culture is indeed a weird phrase but sort of the standard section heading for mentioning artworks etc which directly reference or draw on the article subject, as discussed in the essay "In popular culture" content Mujinga (talk) 11:48, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the article on popular culture. Giving it a read I think reinforces that a number of the things in this section of the Calais Jungle article probably shouldn't be in there as they aren't notable and are more like trivia and/or crufts. --Woofboy (talk) 12:35, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * honestly this section seems fine to me, there aren't in my opinion crufty or tangential elements Mujinga (talk) 19:04, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * How does one decide if something is crufty or trivial in this instance? --Woofboy (talk) 21:27, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Well one way would be that we are in a GA review so the reviewer would say if they found specific items crufty or not. Otherwise, it can be a talkpage discussion, like I said I don't see the need to remove items but you can always suggest a specific deletion (or indeed simply be bold). Right now however since we are in a GA review perhaps it's good to leave a version which Bungle can then review.

Misc

 * As alluded to previously, I think there needs to be some consistency on whether this is an encampment, jungle or shanty town. It seems there is interchangable use throughout the article. In my view, an encampment is fundamentally what it is, the jungle is the informal name it was given and a shanty town is how it could be described
 * yeah i can see why you said that, hopefully it's better now after various changes Mujinga (talk) 14:27, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Article structure: Just looking over the article as a whole, I feel some of the sections appear arbitrary, and their ordering likewise (e.g., why have a section about the eviction of the southern part of the camp, then a section about solidarity, then another about the final eviction; or why do the containers have their own section). My previous attempt to organise the structure wasn't too good, but what about these tweaks?
 * -The "Containers" section becomes organised under "Facilities" (i.e., the containers were one of the facilities, provided by the state).
 * -"Solidarity" is moved to follow "Facilities".
 * -"Eviction of the southern sector" and "Eviction and demolition" are placed one following the other under the parent heading "Evictions"
 * --Woofboy (talk) 14:18, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * i agree the solidarity section coming before the final eviction section seems wrong initially but i actually think it's better that way since the solidarity came whilst the camp was still there and a lot of it (in terms of the international stuff) was after the container eviction and before the final eviction. i'm not really tied to the word facilities as section header but i can't think of a better descriptor right now. Mujinga (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, I wasn't clear. The "Solidarity" section would still come before the "Evictions" section. I disagree that the solidarity came after the eviction in Feb./March 2016: just taking the current items in the "Solidarity" section, for instance, only one of the items (Lilly Allen's visit) happens after the Feb./March eviction. As for the "Facilities" heading, what about "Facilities and infrastructure" (which broadens it out to talk about the physical make up of the camp more generally)? --Woofboy (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Conclusion
Generally, not a bad article but I have picked up on a lot of minor issues, some where there needs to be elucidation and others where things don't quite fit, or where the structure needs to be looked at. I appreciate some of the article structure has changed in the last few days by but this can be easily addressed. I do feel the article broadly covers the subject matter and that it is on the whole reasonably well written, less some minor grammar and capital letter corrections needed. It is well referenced but some of the references don't support claims being made and would need to be reworded or new references sought.

I feel this is a good initial starting point from the review and I will continue to monitor and post anything further I think needs to be addressed. I am mindful this isn't an FA review and so perfection isn't the end game at this time. I have judged that it needs work to address GA criterion 1 and 2 but am happy to hold this for the improvements to be made. Bungle (talk • contribs) 15:23, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Great thanks for that Bungle, I'll make a start on the improvements tonight but I think I'll need a few sessions, so I'll ping you when I've replied to everything (and of course if you want to comment on something in the meantime I'll be happy to hear it). Mujinga (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * No problem at all. Feel free to query (or indeed question) any of my comments you're unsure about. I observed you have expressed a desire to get it to FA status, so whilst I have not gone quite into the depths of what that would entail, I'd hope it could perhaps be closer to a "really good" article. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:32, 9 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Cool thanks for the reply - I'll carry on now, no major queries yet and I think I'll prob end up doing the whole sweep since i tend to answer at least some of my queries for myself as i go forwards :) Yes i did comment that ORES gave the article an FA rating but only meant that superficially, still thought if you want to give any pointers in passing on heading towards FA status that would certainly be interesting. Mujinga (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I've now replied to everything hopefully and made some improvements. I'll await your response. Mujinga (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, I see you have been busy in the short time between starting it and your last message. Are you asking me for an update/clarity on some things or that you feel you have completed all points raised on the review? Bungle (talk • contribs) 18:31, 10 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes I was pinging to say the ball is back in your court, I feel that I've replied to all the points to my satisfaction and I'm sure you'll want to make some additional comments, see what you think. Mujinga (talk) 18:40, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Nice work. I'll see if I can continue to good work. Thanks again! --Woofboy (talk) 11:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * hi, so (in my view) with a good article review the reviewer (here Bungle) makes comments and then the responder(s) (here me as nominator but could also be you or indeed other people who take an interest) make improvements, then the reviewer takes another look, then after perhaps a few more comments and answers, the article either becomes a good article or fails the review. so we aren't done yet, Bungle is responding to my improvements, so you are also welcome to chip in at the discussion above.


 * thanks for the comments, i'll try to answer them now to keep the ball rolling. Mujinga (talk) 11:59, 14 March 2020 (UTC)


 * It's great that you both want to collaborate to get this to a good article status. I never quite intend upon reviews becoming excessively lengthy, though if you observed some of my previous reviews, you may see this is not too uncommon! I still need to take a look through the remaining review sections and perhaps another whole-article review would be appropriate as a fair amount of prose has been introduced and restructured. Bungle (talk • contribs) 14:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi and. So the article has been improved quite a lot, which is great. For me, i don't have much else to add here so would it be good to leave the article alone for a day or two, in order for Bungle to finish the GA review? this depends on both your schedules as well of course. Thanks! Mujinga (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2020 (UTC)


 * I have observed the very significant changes over the last few days to the article, which constitute far more than grammar fixes and restructuring. As such, large parts now exist which did not before and it would be wise of me to consider a semi-full review in its entirety. What I don't want is for this to become a chore or a drawn-out process that becomes quite exhausting. This review page is already extraordinarily large so I am mindful about keeping things manageable too. I'll consider whether any further followup suggestions should form part of an entirely new review (which I have done before now elsewhere), or just minor suggestions on the back of this. You may need to allow up to a week for me to read through again, ideally without any significant further changes, if that's ok? Bungle (talk • contribs) 22:05, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I've made a couple of last minute changes (sorry for the delay, things have been a bit tricky around here with covid-19. Heh). I'll leave off now. Thanks for all the hard work, Mujinga and Bungle. I hope things are going okay wherever you are. --Woofboy (talk) 13:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply Woofboy, sure I'll also leave the article clear for you to read again Bungle. I agree it's not worth making the review a long drawn-out thing, so perhaps it's good to begin afresh, whatever works. In any case I do think most, maybe even all, of the points above have been engaged with, although I can also imagine a new readthrough might yield new questions. All the best to you both. Mujinga (talk) 16:22, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to update and say I haven't forgotten about this - I plan to add comments in the next few days, as I wanted to do a thorough, or at least reasonably complete look over the article again, rather than picking on the new additions only. It won't need to be exhaustive, as that was done in the initial review and isn't necessary for GA. Bungle (talk • contribs) 20:57, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the update! Mujinga (talk) 08:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks, Bungle. --Woofboy (talk) 10:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in this, I started making changes yesterday and will try and clean up minor things myself if I spot anything to reduce the amount of follow-up queries needed (if any). Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Followup assessment
I am working through this slowly and making minor changes I see appropriate, but feel free to pull me up on anything you disagree with (or amend yourself). I will try and make any amendments myself to save picking up and querying little things, but as I couldn't easily see the above validated, I figured it best I query it. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In the statistics section, there is a comment "About 78 people had been there for more than a year", but I don't see this in the reference report given (it's possible I have overlooked or that it's calculated via another approach). Also with that report, it's quite a lot of pages and I would have thought it'd make more sense to reference this in a reflist, then put citations in the prose with a page number so it's clear (it's not a GA red line, but it does make validation alot easier). A good example of this is what I did with Back-to-back house, which used a lot of book/report references but clearly identified the pages.
 * Hi Bungle, I didn't add this myself, but it looks like on page 11 there's the chart and at the top, 1.42% of men women and children at the camp said they had been there longer than a year. With the total being 5500, 1.42% gives 78.1 people. In itself, I don't personally think that is a very useful stat, although I do like the other ones from the report in the sentences either side of it. Mujinga (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries. I have put this report into a sources section so it can be inline cited with the page number. Perhaps when time permits, other sources could be done the same with page numbers explicitly specified. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * One of things I noted in the original review was the NGO abbreviation. The term "NGOs" remains within the article (itself fine), but it isn't explained what it is, or linked, until the last paragraph in the Facilities section (it occurs before this twice, including in the section previous in abbreviated form). I suggest the full name and link should be moved to the first instance of the term, which is in the Statistics section. Bungle (talk • contribs) 16:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hiya yes that was done before but then the sections were moved around, so I can do it again. Good spot! Mujinga (talk) 18:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have reviewed the article a few times and reworded some parts or made minor text adjustments (let me know if you don't agree with some of the changes). I feel you sufficiently addressed the review when I initially posted it and the changes subsequent to this don't cause any further concerns. If you wanted to look at taking this to FA, it could definitely do with being looked at again and the references rechecked, as I am sure would happen anyway. Did you ever get anywhere with a population graph/table, or did you consider this to be difficult to present with accuracy? I am mindful this is one of the longer "on holds" now and am keen to wrap it up as I do not see any major issues that would prevent the article being graded as good. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Bungle thanks for sticking with this, we have been going for a while indeed, for me that's not really a problem since I see the article improving. I was hoping to go through everything now but my plans have just changed so I'll have to continue later today or tomorrow, I also want to give the article another decent read through to catch any new errors. On a quick look I agree with most of your edits but not all. Everything is pretty minor except the use of sfn tags. I can understand why you did it and am grateful for the page numbers, but per MOS:STYLEVAR I would rather stick with the current referencing system to maintain consistency. The problem would come later since if people can choose how to cite new info in different ways then we will end up with a two tier referencing system which wouldn't be good. I'm happy to make the change so you don't have to. On the table, I was hoping to talk about it with Woofboy but we didn't do that yet, I basically hit a point where I couldn't work out a way to deal with the different figures supplied by different groups, so yes the accuracy is a concern. Cheers for the suggestions about going for FA! Mujinga (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries - any reference that refers to a book, report etc should really disclose the page number, regardless what format this is presented in. Otherwise, this definitely has good potential to be a featured article and would make a good featured article in my view, following additional scrutiny and further tidying up. I am hoping to get this review wrapped up in the next day or so. Bungle (talk • contribs) 17:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes agreed on the page number thing, when I'm citing I always try to provide as much info as possible. I've given the article a close read and made some tweaks, including putting the report back into ref links. Just so you know, I changed around the photos, but I haven't added any more. I'm happy to hand this back to you again now. Mujinga (talk) 20:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I see you have made a number of changes (some contrary to mine, but that isn't a big deal). To me, this article absolutely is at the very least "good", perhaps very good and I feel satisfies the GA criteria. No doubt other editors will find further improvements or perhaps concerns if/when you take it towards FA status, but in terms of this process, I think we can say it deserves the good article status, which I am more than happy to agree with. Yes, it has taken over a month since the start of the review, but there were some quite significant additions in that time too. Well done to both yourself and . I'll keep the article on my watch list as i'll be interested if you ever do take it to an FA process! Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Thanks to Woofboy and also to the earlier contributors who brought this very close to good article status. And of course to you Bungle for a thorough review. Mujinga (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice work, and . Thanks! --Woofboy (talk) 12:01, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
Comment: by quirk of fate (there haven't been any edits since December), a user has started making quite largescale changes to the article. I'll ping here to get them involved, if they want to be. I won't do anything with the edits right now since I'm unsure what stage the review is at and don't see a point to duplicate labour unneccessarily. In any case, I hope we can all work together to make this a Good Article. Mujinga (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I was going to post the review this weekend, although of course if any of the edits make some of my comments redundant, then i'd have to amend or remove though perhaps. It's no problem for someone else to jump on and make improvements though! I could even post a part review of sections that are unchanged and go from there, as there is no time limit for completing this. Bungle (talk • contribs) 23:15, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi and . Sorry if I've made your work tricky, Bungle. I'm afraid I don't know what a GA review is, but I'm happy to help, if I can. If it's helpful to know, some of the changes I made were to remove a paragraph about President Macron that seemed an aside to the history of the camp and to nail down the chronology of the eviction of the southern part of the camp (the article called it an attempted eviction, which made it sound like either it was a failure to evict the southern section or a failure to evict the whole camp - from the POV of the authorities, it was a successful eviction of the part they had intended to evict (i.e., the southern part). There was also a problem because that section made it sound like there were two evicitons (on Feb. 25 and in early March) when there was just the one, which started on Feb. 29/March 1, so I was trying to clear that up). I hope I haven't made things tricky. I look forward to working with you both. Should I hold off making other edits at the moment? --Woofboy (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Don't worry about it. This is a collaborative effort after all and you weren't to know I was reviewing it. I had already picked up upon the Macron/brexit portion and took a similar view so that's fine. Absolutely feel free to be involved in the review and/or make further suggestions to what i'll post tomorrow, though ideally just pause until that happens. A GA review is generally not an exhaustive assessment and more people involved does no harm. Bungle (talk • contribs) 21:45, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes the edits on the southern part eviction were helpful thanks Woofboy, it's quite confusing that part of the history, i'll hope to clarify it a bit more today. Regarding the Macron paragraph i do see the use of it here since it indicates how the jungle became a hot potato at the very highest level between the UK and France, but if you both think it's not relevant I'm fine with it staying out. More comments to come! Mujinga (talk) 12:36, 10 March 2020 (UTC)