Talk:We Are Here (collective)/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Bilorv (talk · contribs) 14:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Alright, I'll take this one as part of the backlog drive. I'm seeing no quickfail issues, and in particular I'm seeing broad coverage, which is good, but I do have some comments on structure that I'd like to discuss before we go into the details of prose and checking inline citations.

The article has lots of subsections that feel quite disjoint. Some of the sections are quite short for level 2 headers, and it makes the chronology a bit obfuscated, as does the section "Recent events" which will quickly fall out-of-date. Would it perhaps be possible to split each of the content up into the following major sections: "Background"; "Significant occupations"; "Works about the collective"? Then the sections "Vluchthaven" to "Rudolf Dieselstraat" (apart from "Swahili group") would be paragraphs within or subsections under "Significant occupations". Feel free to make some alternate suggestions—in particular, I'm struggling to work out where the government actions should fit, but I think they can remain merged with content about occupations (as in "Vluchthaven") or be moved to "Background" where not about specific squatting incidents (as in the last two paragraphs of "Recent events").

Just some quick smaller comments that struck me as I skimmed the article:

  • Infobox caption "Banner at demonstration" could be "Banner at 2018 demonstration".
  • Correct me if I'm wrong but I think for alt text, it's preferable to write |alt=refer to caption rather than duplicating the caption, as the infobox does (see here); and the image in the body lacks an alt parameter.
  • The collective is sometimes referred to as "It" e.g. "It has also set up the We Are Here Academy". Wouldn't "they" be preferable, as we're really referring to a group of people rather than a company or organisation?

I'll formally put the article  On hold but I'm not setting a fixed deadline to get the review done by, as long as there's a good amount of discussion and progress in the next seven days. — Bilorv (talk) 14:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilorv, Thanks for taking on this review. I'll have quick look at your initial comments now Mujinga (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To reply:
First of all I gave the article a good re-read and did some minor tweaks (adding a few more wikilinks etc).
Sections - yes I see what you mean, the solution you suggest is logic and I have implemented it now, let me know what you think.
Infobox caption now includes 2018, good spot
Infobox caption/alt - I was following what it says at Wikipedia:Extended_image_syntax#Alt_text_and_caption, so I guess duplication is also ok
Image alt - added, thanks!
Collective is singular so to use the example you gave, I'm reading it as "It (the We Are Here collective) has also set up ..." but if anywhere is reading funny, let me know and I can rephrase.
I might not have much time the rest of today, but I should be around the rest of the week. Thanks! Mujinga (talk) 08:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second batch of comments[edit]

Alright, thanks for the reply. The structure is looking good, so I've moved onto some comments about the prose and referencing:

  • Some of the quotes in the references are very lengthy (e.g. #35 from We Are Here). If there's precedent for this, like an FA with a similar referencing style, then point me to it. But otherwise I think these quotes need trimming, not least because there could even be copyright concerns with a couple of them—if we're quoting a substantial proportion of the article then it's not fair use (like with images and WP:NFCCP#2). There are also some quotes in English when the sources are in Dutch (e.g. #8 from Parool), which definitely needs fixing.
    • There's a few different things going on here:
    • Re ref 35 (the We Are Here quote) I wanted to include it because it's a note on the map on the linked page, so quite easy to miss. Maybe it might work better as a referenced footnote here?
    • The Dutch quotes are from the specific part of the NL article that I am referring to. I think it is unfair for a non-Dutch speaker to have to trawl through an entire reference to find the cited info, so I am trying to make it easier (since in the age of machine translation anyone can translate a few sentences in most major languages with ease). I would agree that my stance makes more sense with longer texts. I feel the MoS guidance on this specific point is rather vague, but backs up what I am doing, per WP:NONENG Mujinga (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I agree (and have had some prior discussions on this point) that translations should not be in the quotes, since anyone can (machine) translate the original text for themselves Mujinga (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the comments. You've actually pointed to a part of policy which I wasn't aware of, WP:NONENG, and it says If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. This seems pretty clear to me—if a footnote has a Dutch quote then it needs to include an English translation. I think it's simpler to omit quotes entirely because of this complication and the copyright concerns with quotes of these lengths. For note #35 specifically, I think the parameter |at= fits best for the comment "See note 33 on map". — Bilorv (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • ran out of time, will come back to this
        • i take your point about direct quotes and will come on to that below, regarding citations i am taking the relevant part of WP:NONENG as As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page, so then what I am doing is adding the relevant portion before someone needs to ask. This seems like best practice. Mujinga (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • yes |at= works nicely! Mujinga (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "In popular culture" section is fine in its content, but it shouldn't be a bulleted list. Convert it to prose, and if there's more to say about some of these entries then that would be good, otherwise some are a little bit short.
    • I prefer the list structure since it is chronological. I don't see what would be gained by converting to prose, since it will still effectively be a list. MOS:POPCULT says "the poorest approach is a list, which will attract the addition of trivia" but each item is referenced and I don't expect trivia to be added here, it's not an article about a popstar or something. Mujinga (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You've pointed out the part of policy that recommends against this, and I do think it would be better as prose, but this isn't a deal-breaker. — Bilorv (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some people fall into 'the gap' since they are unable to return to their country of origin. In 2016, it was estimated there were 35,000 people in this gap in the Netherlands. What are the quote marks around "the gap" about? Is this a term used by a particular group, or slang? We also need to be very specific with wording here: it's not 35,000 people who have been estimated to not be able to return to their country of origin, but 35,000 people who lack documentation to live in the Netherlands for whatever reason.
    • The "asylum gap" is mentioned in the Merks citation, so I've rephrased Mujinga (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes i see what you mean about the 35,000 - also rephrased Mujinga (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you've missed my point with "the gap". The problem is that it's a quote with no obvious source or origin. Is the sentence not simpler as Some people are unable to return to their country of origin ...? — Bilorv (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • i feel that the gap is quite a useful concept for showing how people get stuck in between a rock and a hard place, but i agree the reference talking about human rights groups using the term is a bit fuzzy. It does come from a CNN article so that could be added as it seems more reputable. Mujinga (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Right, I'm fine with keeping the phrase if it's attributed to a source (Some people fall into what human rights groups describe as "the asylum gap") or removing it, just not keeping it without clear attribution to who uses the phrase. — Bilorv (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another point on the same section: the Groene source names as reasons cited by members of the collective that they couldn't return to their origin country: they cannot prove where they come from, they cannot get the correct travel and identity documents, or they are returned at the border. I think this, or some other details about specific circumstances of members of the collective, are worth mentioning somewhere.
  • ... resulting in many evictions and occasionally a successful outcome. Successful for whom, and in what way?
    • there's already more info about that in the intro, so I've removed that clause, I don't think it's doing much there. Mujinga (talk) 11:10, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... now controlled by a coalition of GroenLinks, D66, PvdA and SP – it's worth giving some descriptors of what these political parties stand for, or an overall description like "left-wing" or "centre-left".
    • I've added centre-left - that's a product of moving the chunk of text since they are identified like that below, i'll leave the link below as well Mujinga (talk) 13:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Femke Halsema started serving ... – Same here, some description of Halsema would be ideal.
    • I am not sure what you mean here, since there are three mayors mentioned in the article, so presumably if giving details for her I should do the same for the other. I don't know what i can really say more than commenting on what party the mayors were previously from? Maybe that can be helpful in the case of Halsema at least because then the conflict between her and her old party is drawn out. Mujinga (talk) 10:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, van Aartsen's party is mentioned, and van der Laan is not really the main subject of a paragraph in the way that Halsema is. Mentioning that she was previously in GroenLinks (which should be consistently capitalised, one way or another) would be good, yes. — Bilorv (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Vluchtkerk was occupied (eventually with permission) – Permission from whom?
    • permission from the owner, but this doesn't seem to be in the sources so I have removed it Mujinga (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was not an option for some refugees with bad memories of prisons ... – I don't wish for this to sound callous, but these sorts of phrases need to be reworded for WP:NPOV reasons. Something like Some refugees in the group refused, citing prior bad experiences in prisons ....
    • The source says many had unpleasant associations (vervelende associaties) with prisons, so I was probably trying to stay close to that. Rephrased.
  • The situation then took a turn for the worse when a far-right group announced they would also ... should be shortened to just A far-right group announced they would also ....
    • I've rephrased, I do think it's neutral to say the situation worsened because there was no disturbance to the public order until the far-right group got involved Mujinga (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's not neutral—not everyone would agree that maintaining public order is necessary or desirable. I still think this should be rephrased. — Bilorv (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think I agree with that, but I tweaked the sentence in case its 'worsened' that is causing problems.
  • In April 2019, Fortune M. was ... — Who? One of We Are Here?
    • Yes I can see that was ambiguous, I've clarified he was part of the collective Mujinga (talk) 13:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of small bits that need a bit of copyediting, but hopefully it's alright if I do a thorough copyedit of the article myself in a couple of days. — Bilorv (talk) 19:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bilorv, I've replied to your comments. Re minor tweaks, please feel free to make them - someone was kind enough to do a copyedit already and if you can fix any more typos that have crept in, that would be great! Mujinga (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing these points. I've replied again to a couple of them. I'll go through some minor tweaks shortly. — Bilorv (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a big copyedit in this edit. There weren't many outright mistakes, but GA-quality prose needs to be "clear and concise", at quite a high standard. Note that brackets are a bit informal for encyclopedia writing. I hope the article looks better with these changes. :) If you prefer the older version of any wording, let me know which ones and why.

Thanks for the edits, I agree with most. I think brackets are more of a stylistic choice, I've never seen anything advising against using them on wikipedia.
In the sentence beginning For example, a spokesperson for the group, Jone is given as an example of one of the people who gained a residence permit
Right, but what it's not an example of is one of the 100 who had gained residence permits by 2017, as Jone got the permit in 2018. — Bilorv (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would say and to set up reads better than without the 'to'
By removing To break down the statistics produced at the end of the social experiment, this then creates the problem you identified below about the numbers. I'm not keen on the way the sentence reads right now.
Right, I just think it's got a little bit too much of a narrative voice for an encyclopedia, like saying "I will now analyse the following". I see the 75/165 point now. Do you think By the end of the period, 165 people had stayed in the prison: [...] works? If not, change it to whatever you feel is best, because I don't feel too strongly on this one.
Great reformulated, definitely good to have got rid of 'social experiment' not sure wh I would have said that orginally. Mujinga (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
running together the words, Vluchtelingen (migrants) and Bouwmaat i think the explanation of why the Vluchtmaat was so named is useful, but if you think its obvious by this point with how the naming works, then i'm fine with the change
Yeah, I think it's obvious following [Vluchtkerk] began the tradition of giving every new location a nickname, by adding 'Vlucht' to the type of place. — Bilorv (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK Mujinga (talk) 14:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"We Are Here Village" i'm not sure about this, by MOS:SINGLE i'd say single apostrophes make more sense, since i'm not taking it as a quotation. The relevant part for me is Simple glosses that translate or define unfamiliar terms usually take single quotes
My mistake, changed back. — Bilorv (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In April 2019, the member of the collective Fortune M. i don't think the first 'the' does much there
Without the "the", it's called a false title, which is less common in British English. The article is marked as using British English but it's a Dutch topic and false titles still can be used in BE, so I've changed it back. — Bilorv (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mujinga (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC) A few more points:[reply]

  • About Vluchthaven: 75 others took the opportunity but 165 people who stayed in the prison – why the difference between the two figures?
    • This is because 75 people from the Vluchtkerk went there but other migrants from other places also joined over the course of a year, so the 165 represents the total number of people who went through the project. This sentence needs some work, as mentioned above. Mujinga (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The council's response remained the same, namely that it could only offer a hostel that opened at 5pm and closed at 9am, otherwise it would be contravening the policy laid down by Parliament. I think this is redundant to the same content under "Background", so can be removed.
  • The Rudolf Dieselstraat section quotes a couple of politicians, but WP:NONENG says that for foreign quotes, In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians.
    • It's amazing how much time I've spent poring over this very short section of the MoS! I think it means if you quote a foreign language directly in the text, it also needs a translation in English, so I don't think it applies here. Mujinga (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm sorry to keep belabouring this point, but the context of the subsection "Quoting", which this text is from, is specifically introduced by: If you quote a non-English reliable source (whether in the main text or in a footnote), a translation into English should always accompany the quote. As for the reply above about quotes in footnotes, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source ..., that text doesn't contradict or nullify what I'm seeing as a firm, non-negotiable rule: if you quote a non-English source in prose or in a footnote, an English translation must follow (or precede) it. And sorry if I missed it, but I don't think you've addressed my concern that some of these quotes are copyright issues. For instance, for ref #14, we're quoting 80 words of a 250-word article, a full third, which is genuinely a copyright problem. Quoting to that extent is not protected by American law.
        My preference is to get rid of the quotes altogether—if disputes are made then point someone to a permalink of an old version, or respond on the talk page. If this is not done, the only outcome I am comfortable with is to feature short quotes of at most 25 words in length, with an English translation accompanying the Dutch. If there are further disagreements then I can request a second opinion on the GA review, or am happy to consult another forum for advice. — Bilorv (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The collective by this point had diversified ... – I don't think this is really related to the previous sentence, so just "The collective has diversified" seems okay.
  • I think the first paragraph should mentioned when the collective formed (2012) and mention a couple of overview stats from the body of the article (e.g. By 2015, We Are Here was composed in total of around 225 migrants, By 2019, the total had risen to over 50 squats according to the group's own count). This is important to make clear the scale of the collective, just to signify to readers that we're talking about hundreds of people, rather than a dozen or many thousands.
    • yes great idea, i added some stats but i am a bit wary of the 50 squat claim since until now i've only seen that on the collective's website. Shame because it would be a great DYK factoid! Mujinga (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for persevering in the review. After the comments so far have been addressed, I think the review will be nearly over—just some more checks of referencing for me to do. — Bilorv (talk) 17:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for improving the article! I think I have responded to everything, so back to you again. Mujinga (talk) 14:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've responded to these points. There's a couple of copyediting changes which I don't mind if you reverse, but the sticking points for me are the quotes, and the tiny point about the use of "the asylum gap". I've spotchecked some references and made checks for reliability and the sourcing looks excellent, so no problems there! If the quotes problem is fixed then I can pass this review. — Bilorv (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for the replies. The asylum gap is now quoted to CNN, so that's fixed. On the quotes issue I see what you are saying and I do think you are right to be concerned about copyright. I've asked a question about it on WT:V, sorry to drag the process out longer but it would be really handy for me to know the best practice. If it's OK with you, we could wait a couple of days to see if there is any response. Mujinga (talk) 14:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, no problem, and thanks for starting that discussion. — Bilorv (talk) 18:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: I'm not sure that we'll get any more comments at WT:V. However, EEng's comment is relevant, and I think the most relevant bits are if you give the Dutch you should always give an English translation [...] I think it's fair use as long as you keep the text taken from the original (and therefore the translation) as short as necessary. I think that alleviates my copyright concerns, and I propose that we either remove the quotes altogether, or add the English translations in the citations. The choice is yours, but I do think we need to do one or the other. — Bilorv (talk) 19:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya yes agreed we prob won't get more comments. It seems we have moved from differing in interpretations of what NONENG was saying to differing in interpretations of what EEng was saying, since I thought they were saying what is currently there is fine. Regarding the direct quotes (point2 at WT:V), I have put the English translation in the text and the Dutch translation in the footnotes, so I can add the English translation again in the footnotes, which I think is what you are asking, but that does contradict the advice of both EEng and Izno. In terms of the fair use (point1 at WT:V), sure I can look at the Dutch used and try to shrink it. I was thinking for the ref which particularly concerned you, it covers two sentences so I could split it into two references. I'll look into that now. Mujinga (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bilorv: I trimmed some citations down, which hopefully alleviates the copyright concerns. I'm happy to add translations anywhere if required but I feel re point1 the Dutch is backing up the paraphrased article text and re point2 there's no need to put an English translation next to the Dutch in the citation because the translation is already in the text. Mujinga (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mujinga: Right, I think I finally see the confusion here. I took "a translation into English" to mean "a passage marked in quotes with the meaning converted as closely as possible into English", which would not count the English text in the body of the article (which summarises, amalgamates and rewords the quoted text) as a translation. But considering the context is a policy about verifiability, I can't see an issue with treating the text as "a translation into English" in context, as I believe you are doing. So in that case, I think the article is fine as it currently stands. That was the last outstanding issue so I'm ready to pass the review for GA status. I'll just leave it open for a few hours in case you want to respond any further. — Bilorv (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Great! I'm pleased we worked this through then. Thanks a lot for the thorough review. Mujinga (talk) 19:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for working with me. Pass for GA: the article is thorough, excellently sourced, well-illustrated and also very interesting! It meets all the GA criteria. — Bilorv (talk) 22:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:We_Are_Here_(collective)/GA1&oldid=1087600522"