Talk:Domestic violence in Kenya/GA1

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

Reviewer: Airborne84 (talk · contribs) 00:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Beginning review. --Airborne84 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I didn't find any copyright violations of text, disambiguation links, or issues with external links using the Wiki tools.
 * I don't find the article at GA standards right now. Below are my initial notes with some recommendations to improve. I'll wait for a few days for a response before failing or holding.


 * 1. Most concerning was this image in the article This may be a copyright violation as it was uploaded by the nominator under a license and it is not clear that the nominator holds the copyright or has permission. This should be clarified or the image removed.
 * 2. The references appear at first glance to be from a decent variety of journals that are reliable sources. However, the sources each list a page range which appears to comprise the entire article within a larger work. That's fine, but the citations should also point to the specific page(s) that support the statements in the article to allow readers to access the underlying idea (and reviewers to check if properly sourced).
 * 3. The lede section summarizes the article, but in a fairly stilted manner. Paragraph three is a single sentence. In other words, it's a bit under the threshold for Good Article criterion (GAC) #1—well written. Maybe try 2–3 paragraphs and try to wrap the passages together a bit more.
 * 4. I'm concerned that some of the sentences may be too absolute and could present a POV, falling afoul of GAC #4. For example, "men are also threatened by women making independent choices." All Kenyan men? Actually, all the sentences in that particular paragraph save the topic sentence present the same appearance of being 100 percent absolute. Please check the sources (I didn't have the exact page numbers, see comment #1 above), and caveat statements as appropriate.
 * 5. The "Responses" section has a rather abrupt one-sentence intro paragraph. I don't think there's a rule/guideline on this in the GAC, so won't say it has to change to be a GA, but I might do a little more explaining if there is to be a section intro. Again, this isn't a required fix, IMO. Just a note.
 * 6. The "Government" sub-section doesn't really fit into the "responses" section. The material in this section precedes responses. I recommend putting this in a background section at the start of the article in the manner of Domestic violence in India to set the framework within which the domestic violence occurs. You could also do it immediately before the "Responses" section, but if the "Government" material is part of a broader context paragraph at the outset, it will help frame all the material in the article—not just the responses.
 * 7. In general, although I'm not an expert on the subject, the article appears to be broad in its coverage. My quick review of other similar articles on Wikipedia didn't reveal any major missing aspects. The article also appears to be stable.
 * 8. As a side note, I was happy to see en dashes in page ranges. Nice!


 * If the above are addressed, or someone identifies they are working them in the coming few days, I'll review again. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)