Talk:Day of Reconciliation/GA1

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

Reviewer: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 18:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

GA review
Can't believe this has been sat there since last October. I'll take a shot at it, especially as the South African cricket team are in England at present. Leave it with me for now. Jack &#124; talk page 18:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Checks
No need to worry about WIAGA so I'll add the GA criteria list now, everything set to default = "don't know yet". Jack &#124; talk page 19:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 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 embedded lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Inline citations to reliable sources where necessary (e.g., direct quotations):
 * C. No original research:
 * D. No copyright violations:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Scope:
 * B. Length:
 * 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) 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) 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:
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

Comments
1. One of the first things I looked for, given the history of RSA, was point 4 – neutrality. In this respect, the article is extremely fair and clearly states the importance of the date to both Africans and Afrikaaners. It also passes point 5 – stability. Jack &#124; talk page 19:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

2. Use of the national flag is a good idea. Images are optional, really, but they are useful if they are relevant. Given Desmond Tutu's speech on the holiday in its inaugural year, I've added his portrait which is an approved image. I think that if the article can be expanded, you should consider adding another image if it reaches 20k. This means it passes point 6. Jack &#124; talk page 19:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

3. The article is well written and I just made one or two tweaks to the narrative. I assume, incidentally, that "apartheid" in South Africa is always written as "Apartheid"? I'm very impressed by the due diligence shown as regards WP:V with everything sourced and inline citations throughout. I'm passing points 1 and 2. Jack &#124; talk page 19:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

4. Point 3 is the tricky one here because we're looking for "broad in coverage" and it is a short article, though with a topic like this it's difficult to expand it without introducing a lot of waffle. It is 12.8k but, personally, I couldn't care less if it were only 2.8k as long as it covers its entire scope. Certainly, WP:SCOPE is not a problem at all. I think, however, that on balance I'd like to see more in the introduction (the "lead", if you prefer). The intro effectively summarises "Date and observance" but not the remainder so I'm going to request a second paragraph in the intro which concisely summarises "Origins" and I'm leaving point 3B open for now. I'll place the article on hold and diarise it for the end of the month. Thanks very much. Jack &#124; talk page 20:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , if I understand correctly, we just need to expand the article some more. I'll work on that today. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Anything else you can add to the article will be fine but it's actually the introduction (lead) that needs to be expanded a little because it doesn't say anything about the coverage in the "Origins" section. Thanks again. Jack &#124; talk page 09:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your feedback! I've expanded the article in general and also the lead. I'm going to admit that I don't often feel like I am a very good lead-writer, so I would appreciate any criticisms you have! Thank you again! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello again and well done. The lead is fine and so are the additions to the narrative. I'm pleased to be able to pass the article as GA standard. All the best. Jack &#124; talk page 17:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Happy dance! Thank you, ! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)