Talk:Kony 2012/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Khazar2 (talk · contribs) 16:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be glad to do this review. I'll do a close readthrough at some point this week, noting any initial issues I find. After that, I'll move on to the checklist. -- Khazar2 (talk) 16:06, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

At first glance, the lead section doesn't seem to adequately summarize the article per WP:LEAD; the lead doesn't appear to discuss various responses to the film at all, though this comprises most of the article. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:20, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"other viewing emanating from a central "Kony 2012" website operated by Invisible Children" -- this is a somewhat confusing phrase--I'm not sure how "viewing" can "emanate from" something. Maybe just say, "while still other viewers watched the film at... " -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
~~" the time when the campaign expires" -- Depending on your time zone, you'll need to update the verb tense in a few hours. =) -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:22, 31 December 2012 (UTC)~~[reply]

Other notes[edit]

"brutal guerrilla warfare tactics" -- While I think few would dispute that Kony uses brutal tactics, this loaded descriptor should be attributed in-text or removed. (Or better yet, these tactics could be detailed.)

Removed brutal. That should probably fix the sentence enough. Describing his tactics would probably be a bit too much detail for an article just on this film. Silver seren^C 03:54, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"It was noted that..." it seems odd to list so many speakers in this section and have this sentence be anonymous.~~

I specified that it was the journalists from the source in question that spoke with people in the area. Silver seren^C 04:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Ida Sawyer, a Congo LRA researcher with HRW currently based in Goma" -- the section is starting to feel a bit indiscriminate at this point. We've already gotten a statement from HRW, and the amount of background information about this person seems excessive.

Niemti simplified it. Silver seren^C 04:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"In November 2011, while Kony 2012 was in production, Foreign Affairs magazine published an article... " I'm confused by this-- did Foreign Affairs just criticize this type of portrayal generally? Or did they have advance knowledge of this specific movie? Unless FA criticized Kony 2012 directly and by name, I'd suggest removing this part as WP:SYNTH.

Looks like Niemti removed it. Silver seren^C 04:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~provide a quick definition of "slacktivism"~~

I put in a quick definition. I hope it sounds okay. Silver seren^C 04:21, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Kony's followers are now thought to number only in the hundreds, and Kony himself is believed to be in the Central African Republic rather than Uganda" -- is this still true as of January 2013? Consider adding a date here and writing "as of", rather than saying "now", to avoid this going out of date.

I added a time frame. Silver seren^C 04:23, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"There has been growing criticism in Uganda of the film's failure" --is this still an ongoing process? Again, this language seems likely to go out of date fast (if it hasn't already).~~

I gave the sentence a bit more clarity. Silver seren^C 04:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

" Radhika Coomaraswamy, the Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations and the special representative for children and armed conflict, called for the Kony2012 campaign to divert its donation funds from supporting military action to capture Kony to rehabilitation and reintegration programmes for former child soldiers." -- another example where the context of the individual could be radically shortened; we don't need both the titles (I'm not sure we need anything more than "UN representative"). The lengthy context for every individual makes this section exceptionally difficult to read.

I shortened it and a few other things. Though I do think it's important to note the importance of the people we're quoting. Otherwise, readers will wonder why we're including their quotes. Silver seren^C 20:52, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"In response to concerns about working with the Ugandan government" -- this turns into a bit of a run-on sentence; consider breaking into two.~~

Split it. Silver seren^C 20:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The resolution has received" -- The tense is odd here. Is the vote on this resolution still ongoing? Again I think it would be better to rephrase as "as of [date], 37 senators had supported the resolution."

I fixed the tenses. Please let me know if there's any other instances of this. Silver seren^C 21:00, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"bipartisan senators" -- unless you mean to praise the senators for their bipartisanship, probably better to say "37 senators, including both Republicans and Democrats"~~

Good idea, I did it via your suggestion. Silver seren^C 21:04, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~"According to the statement, the mission commences on March 24, 2012" --clearly out-of-date~~

Past tensed it. Silver seren^C 21:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General: This looks reasonably good on a first pass--thanks for all your work on it! The biggest issue for any article like this is keeping it up to date. The best thing you can do here is add a lot of "as of September 2012"-type statements and try to keep it all in past tense. The positive/negative sections of the criticism are difficult to read due to their density and wordiness, though I'm not sure there's as easy a solution here. These sections feel rather indiscriminate, including nonnotable figures as well as notable, and including statements at great length and in seemingly random order (such as the two HRW spokespeople quoted in separate paragraphs). Consider shortening and streamlining these sections, aiming for including representative responses rather than a comprehensive catalog. Some nonnotable figures like Father Ernest Sugule could probably be cut entirely--especially as he has nothing new to say--and lengthy statements by others could be condensed to summary and a few key words. Let me know what you think. -- Khazar2 (talk) 21:49, 31 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sawyer was included and specifically mentioned to be based in Goma, because the paragraph was about Goma and the DRC in general. And this article might tell you what kind of city Goma is, as compared to the now-peaceful Uganda (but also as compared to most of the world). --Niemti (talk) 00:22, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's unfortunate, though, is that Sawyer doesn't have anything to say about Goma, but simply repeats that HRW supports the film and wants to see Kony brought to justice, which had already been stated. Couldn't it be safely assumed by a reader that if HRW supports the film, their representative in Goma also supports the film? -- Khazar2 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sugule is notable as leading figure in his NGO, and as such he was asked for a comment by The Guardian. --Niemti (talk) 15:22, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely persuaded, but I see how it's useful to have someone speaking on Goma public opinion. Having long quotations from two HRW sources still seems to me excessive (not in POV sense, but simply in a readability sense), but by itself isn't enough to cause the article to fail. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two more small action points:

"By July 2011, 90 percent of residents of Democratic Republic of the Congo areas influenced by the LRA continued to lived in constant fear of attacks and felt "completely abandoned", according to Oxfam survey." -- including this statistic appears to be a bit of WP:SYNTH, as the given source doesn't appear to mention Kony 2012 (or even directly mention Kony). It might be a better fit for the LRA article; I'd suggest removing it here. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"After a public outburst and other questions as to the project's legitimacy, validity, and morality, interest in the movement waned, and 2012 ultimately passed with Russell's promise largely unfulfilled." --this newly added sentence appears to me to be original research. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's quite correct and can be sourced by a myriad of sources (for example, my own newest additions [1][2] stated pretty much just that while evaluating the whole thing from the end-of-the-year perspective). It should just be rephrased and placed in the lead. --Niemti (talk) 19:19, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And, obviously, a source should be added to the sentence. -- Khazar2 (talk) 19:32, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think this one's almost ready for GA status--thanks to you both for your work on this one! The only remaining issue I see is the Oxfam survey SYNTH point noted above if either of you would like to respond and/or change this in the article. Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:26, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Checklist[edit]

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.	Prose is good, and spotchecks show no evidence of copyright issues.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.
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.
	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).	Article is excellently sourced on the whole.
	2c. it contains no original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The "responses" section could better summarize its information, but on the whole the article passes this criterion.
	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.	Has received a spike of interest with the campaign's expiration, but no edit wars.
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.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The image of the Washington, D.C. posters is an excellent touch. A screenshot from the film could also be a useful addition, particularly one of Acaye.
	7. Overall assessment.	Pass--thanks to you both for your improvements to this one!

Thank you too. --Niemti (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]