Talk:Boerehaat

Boerehaat has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: January 7, 2015. (Reviewed version).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Boerehaat article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

A fact from Boerehaat appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 5 February 2015 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that during the apartheid era, South Africa's National Party won a by-election in Oudtshoorn after waging a "Boerehaat campaign"?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/February. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boerehaat.

Wikipedia

Articles for creation

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
	This article was accepted on 11 June 2014 by reviewer MatthewVanitas (talk · contribs).

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

South Africa High‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Empire Mid‑importance

	British Empire portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.British EmpireWikipedia:WikiProject British EmpireTemplate:WikiProject British EmpireBritish Empire articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

GA Review

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

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

Reviewer: Jaguar (talk · contribs) 20:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Will have this to you within a day or two ☯ Jaguar ☯ 20:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Initial comments

Per WP:LEAD, I would de-bold the phrases "The term Boerehater (English: Boer-hater or Boer hater) if they're not relating to the actual name
The lead could also be expanded a little in order to summarise the article better. I think that by creating another small paragraph ellaborating on the name's origin and history could easily be accomplished by moving content around the Etymology and origin section
"British public for British imperialism and the Second Boer War.[1][5]:34[6][7]" - there's some kind of typo or error there? And also should those citations be more evenly spread to source everything in the paragraph?
"the apartheid era.[5]:33–34[13]" - I have never seen this before, upon reading it again it makes me think if this is some sort of page number?
"Animosity between the British and the Boers intensified in the run-up to the Second Boer War" - link Second Boer War for reference?
""the historical friction between the 'English- and Afrikaans-speaking" - that hyphen could be removed
"In 1973 Edward Feit, then a professor of political science at the University of Michigan" - would read better as just {{xt|In 1973 Edward Feit, professor of political science at the University of Michigan"
"The National Party, under the leadership of B. J. Vorster" - whose National Party? Can it be linked?
"The Nationalists also used the term to censure members" - who are the Nationalists?
I would merge the top two sentences in the Post-apartheid era section to create better flow

References

No dead links, but ref 15 requires a subscription (this shouldn't affect a GAN though)

On hold

This is a neat, compact article, worthy of becoming GA in my opinion. The only thing that stands in the way at the moment is that the lead could summarise the article better (to reach the GA criteria it has to act as a sort of "mini article") and also some minor prose issues that could be addressed. I'll put this on hold for the standard seven days and will see what happens. Thanks! ☯ Jaguar ☯ 12:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your review Jaguar. I use Template:Rp to specify pages when referencing different pages in a source, it is not a typo. Please let me know if you are happy with the changes I have made. Helen Online 21:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Close - promoted

Thank you for your quick response, upon looking at the changes made this article now meets the GA criteria. Promoting ☯ Jaguar ☯ 16:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Edit explanation

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Additional explanation for my edit:

Videos like Kill the Whites by angrysouthafrican2 and the website Genocide Watch are not reliable sources by Wikipedia standards and are not directly relevant to the term Boerehaat. This article is not about the alleged persecution of white South Africans per se but about the term Boerehaat.
Per Template:COI, "Like the other neutrality-related tags, if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning." There has been no such discussion. Furthermore, this article passed a GA review which covered neutrality among other things.

Helen Online 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)Reply

Add topic