Talk:Death of Milton King/GA1

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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

Nominator: SunTunnels (talk · contribs) 04:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Alexeyevitch (talk · contribs) 02:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi. I will be reviewing this article soon. Looks interesting! Alexeyevitch^(talk) 02:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Alexeyevitch, thank you very much for reviewing this article! I haven't been through this process before, so please feel free to let me know when I should be editing the article in accordance with feedback, policies, etc. Thanks. SunTunnels (talk) 18:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

No problem! take your time, I understand this is your first GAN, the relevant criteria is here. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 20:46, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alexeyevitch, @SunTunnels, reminder ping? -- asilvering (talk) 16:11, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Asilvering Ah, apologies, wasn't sure if the review was at a stage where I should go ahead and start fixing stuff. Will do so in the coming days. Cheers. SunTunnels (talk) 02:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Alexeyevitch Ok, I think I've addressed all the concerns you've raised in the review so far, with a couple notes; for 1b, some words like 'though' remain in places because I don't think they'd be considered editorializing or implying anything that isn't directly supported by sources. For 2b, Stevens' doctorate thesis is cited in the few scholarly papers that cover this topic in the past few years, and his thesis also includes content from primary sources that I simply can't find anywhere else. Also fixed the EISA thing (Electoral Institute for the Sustainability of Democracy in Africa), per Library of Congress it's a reliable source. I have access to some of the sources (esp. newspapers) that I've cited because I used to study at UCT, if you'd like to know further about the contents of any particular ones just let me know. 👍 SunTunnels (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I fixed some minor formatting issues but I think I can pass this in this stage. If someone has the same question about the article in the future, it could always be revisited. Congrats on your first GA. Alexeyevitch^(talk) 23:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

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.	Pending I notice that the suffix -ise is inconsistent. A South African-related article should use South African English. See MOS:TIES.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	As per WP:SYNTH and MOS:OP-ED, it sometimes isn't needed to include words like however, though, although, furthermore. Sometimes it's OK if the content is mentioned in the source, but if it isn't it may be seen as slight editorializing. This is something to keep in mind when editing. (see comment above re "though)
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	(some sources place the café on Dock Road) I think using an WP:EXPLNOTE would be better here, (if required, add additional sources which mention the café on Dock Road). Apart from that, the ref layout is good.
	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).	Ref 5 is WP:THESIS, I will look in to this later. Articles should rely on secondary sources as much as possible. Burdened by race: Coloured identities in southern Africa appears to be an ebook, hence why it should use Template:Citebook What is eisa.org.za and what makes it a reliable source? (see comment above re the thesis citations)
	2c. it contains no original research.	No uncited content. I don't have access to the book sources and sources with no links but I'm asuming good faith... I will begin the check soon. Done
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig spots no copyvio issues. I also didn't with the online refrences available.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	No issues
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	No issues also
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Yes
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable with no edit wars, content disputes, etc.
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.	Y
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Y
	7. Overall assessment.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.