Talk:San people/GA1

GA Review
This review is transcluded from Talk:Bushmen/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Review in progress --Anonymaus (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

By way of introduction I would like to say that I enjoyed the article: it was readable and interesting. However this is my first GA review (sorry! we all have to start somewhere) so I've decided to assess it by following the Good article criteria very narrowly.

Is it well written:
 * (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct;
 * The article is well written in an engaing and readable style. There are no apparent spelling or grammatical errors.
 * (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
 * The lead section provides a brief summary and stimulates further reading. Headings and paragraphs are used appropriately. In general, there is no use of technical jargon except for "(using class 5 labels with class 6 plurals is a common strategy used by speakers of southern Bantu languages to show contempt for ethnic groups, though there are many societies whose own endonyms are class 1 nouns with irregular class 6 plurals)" which I deleted. I note this has been commented on before on the talk page. If you want to keep this, it should be explained - but it is probably not essential to the sense of the paragraph. There is no inappropriate use of POV language, or any other breaches of the style guidelines.

Is it factually accurate and verifiable:
 * (a) it provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout;
 * The paragraphs "Opponents to the relocation policy ..." ; "It is further claimed ..." and "However, only a limited number ..." have no clear supporting references. This is important, as this is the most politically contentious part of the article. The section from "The Bushman kinship system..." to "... far from receding waters" also lacks referencing, unless it is [11}, in which case the sources should be referenced within each paragraph. The comparison with the Eskimo kinship system needs support or explanation.
 * (b) at minimum, it provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;
 * The sources seem to be reliable as far as I can tell, as a non-Anthropologist
 * (c) it contains no original research.
 * No evidence of original research

Is it broad in its coverage:
 * (a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * The paper focuses on the current circumstances of the Bushmen of Botswana, whereas in the introduction you refer to "South Africa, Zimbabwe, Lesotho, Mozambique, Swaziland, Botswana, Namibia and Angola". Your focus on Botswana comes close to a POV violation; at the very least there should be some explanation of what happened to the Bushmen in the other countries of southern Africa. I Googled "Bushmen Namibia" and got 118 000 results. I think this is a major weakness of this article.
 * (b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
 * There is no unnecessary detail

Is it neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
 * While you represent both sides of the land rights issue in Botswana, your exclusive focus on Botswana might be taken as a POV violation. However, since I've already raised this under the previous heading, I'll give you a

Is it stable: it does not change significantly from day-to-day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
 * Some lively and partisan editing over the last few weeks, and the objection to "Oldest people in the world" on the Talk page hasn't been addressed, so it isn't really stable.

Is it illustrated, if possible, by images:
 * (a) images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * This looks OK to me
 * (b) images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Images are used well and the article has a good overall appearance.

In conclusion I'm sorry to say that the weaknesses with regard to referencing and comprehensive coverage are important. These can be fixed but probably not in a short period of time I'm not going to put the result "on hold". I have failed the article but I do think the problems can be fixed and when you have done so I would encourage you to re-submit for GA review. Best wishes --Anonymaus (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)