Talk:Social cleansing/GA1

GA Review[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Antidiskriminator (talk · contribs) 09:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The prose is clear and concise. No copyright issues discovered. No grammar issues discovered. It would be better if text could more rely on figures instead of vague expressions like "many" or "often" in, by their nature exceptional, claims about violence.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The existing lede does not properly summarize even the existing text of the article. Once the text of the article adress all major concerns, the lede should be expanded to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. There are other issues described in section below but they are more improvement opportunities than obstacle for GA status. They include WP:UNDERLINK, Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings) and too long TOC.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Using "Sfn" template instead of simple text would be better because it would lead readers directly to the cited work. Also, addition of the external links for online sources would be good. Anyway, all of those remarks are not GA status issues.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	There are a couple of remarks regarding source interpretation in section below, but they are not GA status issues.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	The article does not address the main aspects of the topic. It says almost nothing about the history of the phenomenon and Social cleansing outside Africa and Latin America.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Addition of images would be beneficial.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	The history of social cleansing and social cleansing outside Africa and Latin America should be added to the article. The lede should be expanded to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead.

General remarks[edit]

Source interpretation
- The article says "Most scholars agree that the cause of social cleansing efforts is a result of "interaction of economic conditions and cultural factors." - That is not what the source says. It does not mention scholarly consensus at all. It actually elaborates "the possible interaction of economic conditions and cultural factors". I think the text should be ammended to interpret source more precise. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The article implies that in Africa scholars discovered positive correlations between extreme rainfall and murder of witches trough large negative income shocks and famine. That is not what source says. It clearly explains there are many potential estimation concerns that could "produce a spurious positive correlation between extreme rainfall reports and witch killing". I propose to present this information to the readers who could be otherwise mislead to believe that extreme rainfalls will necessarily result with witch killing.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MOS
- WP:UNDERLINK - There are large portions of text without wikilinks.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down. This is not GA request, only an improvement opportunity.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Disambiguation - The See also section contains one link to disambiguation page (Political cleansing).--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Clarity of prose - The text of the article extensively uses vague expressions like many or often in, by their nature exceptional, claims about violence. It would be good to use figures instead, i.e. x% of children are abused. Otherwise readers could be mislead.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- When? - If some 1996 source says that beggars were killed by police in Colombia, it is necessary to put this statement in context and to explain when this happened and what is the situation now? The source is almost 20 years old. Things are not necessarily always the same. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 23:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Scope
- The article deals only with Africa and Latin America, except very short subsection at the end of article that mentions Asia. What about other regions? I found many sources about social cleansing taking part in Central America, Europe, ...
- What about history of this fenomenon? There are sources about social cleansing taking part in history, i.e. in Soviet Union, Nazi Germany .... ?--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Lede
- After the text of the article is corrected to adress all valid concerns, the lede should be expanded to conform with guidelines at Wikipedia:Lead. The existing lede does not properly summarize even the existing text of the article.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Images
- There are no images in this article. Addition of images would be beneficial. This is not request for GA statu, only an improvemen opportunity.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 21:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Related templates
- There are related templates to which this article should probably be added and consequently they should be added to this article. I.e. Template:Discrimination and/or Template:Discrimination sidebar.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:35, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Failing the nomination - Since no action has been taken for more than 7 days I am going to fail this nomination. This article is exceptionally good work. I am sorry that nominator obviously did not have enough time to address the concerns. I am sure it will be easy for them to resolve this couple of (quite important) issues as soon as they, or somebody else, have some time for that. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]