2014 South African general election 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 1, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2014 South African general election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
A news item involving 2014 South African general election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 May 2014. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to discussions about
infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I think this article is ready for a GA nomination. What do you think other editors? Nathan121212 ( talk) 15:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
IPSOS Source Provincial poll IPSOS.
Party | EC % | L % | NW % | M % | KZN % | FS % | G % | NC % | WC % | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ANC | 71,4 | 67,2 | 63,5 | 63,4 | 56,6 | 55,4 | 45,5 | 42,7 | 27 | |
DA | 8,6 | 7,4 | 6,4 | 9,1 | 11,2 | 24,9 | 22,6 | 45,9 | 54,1 | |
EFF | 4,6 | 11,4 | 12,7 | 6,8 | 0,3 | 2 | 7,3 | 1 | 1,8 | |
ACDP | - | 0,5 | 3,1 | 5,0 | 0,,1 | 0,7 | 2,2 | - | 0,6 | |
Agang SA | 1 | 3 | - | 4,6 | 0,5 | - | 3 | - | 1,2 | |
COPE | 2,5 | 0,4 | - | 0,8 | 0,4 | 7,3 | 2,2 | 5 | 1,6 | |
IFP | - | 1 | 1,9 | 0,8 | 9,8 | - | 0,2 | - | - | |
Africa Muslim Party | - | - | - | - | 0,2 | - | 0,4 | - | 0,2 | |
AZAPO | 0,3 | 0,7 | - | 0,7 | 0,2 | - | 0,4 | - | 0,3 | |
VF+ | 0,2 | 0,7 | 1,1 | - | - | - | 1,8 | - | 1,6 | |
MF | - | - | - | - | 0,9 | - | - | - | - | |
New Labour Party | - | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
PAC | - | 0,5 | - | - | - | - | 0,4 | - | - | |
UCDP | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0,4 | |
UDM | 1 | - | - | - | 0,2 | - | 0,2 | - | 0,2 | |
NFP | - | - | - | - | 1,5 | - | 0,1 | - | 0,2 | |
Other results | ||||||||||
Other | 0,7 | - | - | 5,7 | 1,3 | - | 3,5 | - | 0,4 | |
Not voting in election | 1,6 | 2,8 | 4,7 | - | 3,8 | - | 2,4 | - | 1,3 | |
Did not answer survey | 4,4 | 1,2 | 2,6 | 1,7 | 11 | - | 3,6 | 1,6 | 6,2 | |
Don't know | 2,7 | 3,2 | 1,1 | 1,4 | 2 | 9,5 | 3,8 | 2,2 | 2,5 | |
Not registered to vote | 1 | - | 0,9 | - | - | 0,2 | 0,4 | 1,6 | 0,4 | |
Source: IPSOS Archived (6 October 2014) |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ritchie333 ( talk · contribs) 13:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to review this.
From a cursory look at the article, it looks complete and well-referenced, which is what I would expect from an article detailing a modern political event. One of the problems I see is that a lot of the pose has obviously been added in real-time by editors, so we're left with list that read "On [date], [event]. On [date 2], [event 2]". For a good article, this will need to be copyedited to be more easily readable to someone looking at the election in a historical context. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem, though.
As you're on break, I'm happy to put the review on the back-burner and work on it in the background, with the idea that it will be finished awaiting feedback on your return in the New Year. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
* Normally I'd say "it'll be worth an explanation of who 'x' is", but in the case of
Nelson Mandela I'm going to assume the reader knows exactly who he was, so that isn't relevant here.
* The article body lists many controversies and public reactions. I think it would be good to put a sample of these in the lead, though I'm not sure myself which are the most important.
Comments on the body will follow. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
* "Two hundred members are elected from national party lists" - this fact is not in actually in the source given at the end of the paragraph, though I suspect nobody with a reasonable knowledge of South African politics would challenge this
* The remainder of information in this section is unsourced. Again, this likely to not fall into the "information challenged or likely to be challenged" for a South African, but it probably does for foreign readers not familiar with the system. A citation to the basic makeup of politics would be useful for a reader to learn more.
* The first four paragraphs are unsourced. A similar problem to above - this really need citations
* "33 parties had registered candidates for the national parliamentary election" - the source also says that this was a record number of parties, a fact which would be worth including
* This section contains several entries that are not obviously sourced
* "NUMSA plans to establish" - I think for consistency, using the past tense would be more preferable here
* As I hinted above, this section reads too much like a bulleted list eg : "On 6 February 2014" ... "On 11 March 2014" .... "On 12 March 2014". For a long-term encyclopaedic view, you probably don't need the exact dates. I would cut out the dates and list the facts in chronological order, ideally combining individual sentences together
* "A Financial Mail editorial published on the same day, which cites ... state" - this should use past tense. Same problem with the next sentence.
* This section can probably be merged with the "Electoral system" section above
* "On the weekends of 9–10 November 2013 and 8–9 February 2014 all voting stations were opened for new voters to register and for those who moved residence to re-register in their new voting district." - this claim doesn't appear to be cited in the next inline reference (in the sentence after)
* "approximately 2.3 million new voters" - why then, does
the Business Day live source say it's about 1 million. If sources contradict the figure, use "between 1 and 2 million" or some variation, including all figures listed in sources.
* "and are aged 18 or older will be eligible to vote for the first time" - should be past tense, the election's been and gone
* "The following table shows the largest voting stations abroad" - per
WP:LIST, this would be better represented in prose. I'd pick off London as being the most significant place for ex-pat voting, include Dubai and Canberra, and group the remainder as "other".
WP:CALC says you're on safe grounds adding up individual figures given in sources as long as it's clear that the information can be verified and recalculated by anyone.
* There's too much whitespace at the start of this section. I'd put the table inline with the prose, using the "thumb" parameter
Done Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Done Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
* The "Debates" section should be rewritten as prose
* "Approximately 27,000 South Africans registered to participate in the national election in the international voting phase" - this is redundant, we were told this in the "Voter registration" section
* The "Election-related offences" and "Incidents" sub-sections are both quite small and can probably be combined
* The last sentence in this subsection could be combined with the previous one.
* "Former President Thabo Mbeki cast a special vote on 6 May as he was attending a World Economic Forum meeting in Nigeria on 7 May" - as we've mentioned several dates here, the last "on 7 May" could be written as "on polling day" instead to avoid repetition
* "The local special vote phase of the election took place on 5–6 May 2014, accommodating over 295,000 voters" - I can't find the 295,000 voters figure anywhere in the two sources cited
* I wouldn't bother mentioning "7 May" anywhere in the section; we know what the date is having been told it several times earlier
Removed. Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Fixed Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Fixed Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorted by continent putting Africa at the top. Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
*
King Abdullah of Jordan is a disambiguation page - this should be
Abdullah II of Jordan, though I would pipe the link to say "King Abdullah of Jordan" anyway
Done
Nathan121212 (
talk)
21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
* "BBC's Andrew Harding said that there was no massive change in the elections compared to previous years" - the source also mentions that support for the ANC dropped since 2009, and that he thought the party had "spun" their 62% of the vote as a victory despite the many controversies (most listed in this article). That's worth working into the article.
* This section has quite a few short sentences. It would be worth combining them.
* "demanding the release of the suspects arrested on 8 May 2014" - use "the previous day" instead of the specific date here
@ Nathan121212: - I've gone through the points I raised earlier and checked them against what you've done. I've struck off everything that I agree is now resolved, copyedited a few things in the process. It looks like the main thing is the formatting and stripping out some of the lists, and getting rid of some of the tables. Once that's resolved, I think we'll be a lot closer to a GA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333: I have now split the article. If you can offer any advice for the intro in both articles, it would be appreciated. Nathan121212 ( talk) 13:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion in progress on Talk:2024_South_African_general_election#Infobox_legislative_election_instead_of_Infobox_election which supposedly affects this page and "all elections in South Africa since 1994, not just the 2024 elections." Wowzers122 ( talk) 06:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
2014 South African general election 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 1, 2015. ( Reviewed version). |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2014 South African general election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
A news item involving 2014 South African general election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 11 May 2014. |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to discussions about
infoboxes and to edits adding, deleting, collapsing, or removing verifiable information from infoboxes, which has been
designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
This article has been
mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
Index
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
I think this article is ready for a GA nomination. What do you think other editors? Nathan121212 ( talk) 15:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
IPSOS Source Provincial poll IPSOS.
Party | EC % | L % | NW % | M % | KZN % | FS % | G % | NC % | WC % | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ANC | 71,4 | 67,2 | 63,5 | 63,4 | 56,6 | 55,4 | 45,5 | 42,7 | 27 | |
DA | 8,6 | 7,4 | 6,4 | 9,1 | 11,2 | 24,9 | 22,6 | 45,9 | 54,1 | |
EFF | 4,6 | 11,4 | 12,7 | 6,8 | 0,3 | 2 | 7,3 | 1 | 1,8 | |
ACDP | - | 0,5 | 3,1 | 5,0 | 0,,1 | 0,7 | 2,2 | - | 0,6 | |
Agang SA | 1 | 3 | - | 4,6 | 0,5 | - | 3 | - | 1,2 | |
COPE | 2,5 | 0,4 | - | 0,8 | 0,4 | 7,3 | 2,2 | 5 | 1,6 | |
IFP | - | 1 | 1,9 | 0,8 | 9,8 | - | 0,2 | - | - | |
Africa Muslim Party | - | - | - | - | 0,2 | - | 0,4 | - | 0,2 | |
AZAPO | 0,3 | 0,7 | - | 0,7 | 0,2 | - | 0,4 | - | 0,3 | |
VF+ | 0,2 | 0,7 | 1,1 | - | - | - | 1,8 | - | 1,6 | |
MF | - | - | - | - | 0,9 | - | - | - | - | |
New Labour Party | - | - | 2 | - | - | - | - | - | - | |
PAC | - | 0,5 | - | - | - | - | 0,4 | - | - | |
UCDP | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 0,4 | |
UDM | 1 | - | - | - | 0,2 | - | 0,2 | - | 0,2 | |
NFP | - | - | - | - | 1,5 | - | 0,1 | - | 0,2 | |
Other results | ||||||||||
Other | 0,7 | - | - | 5,7 | 1,3 | - | 3,5 | - | 0,4 | |
Not voting in election | 1,6 | 2,8 | 4,7 | - | 3,8 | - | 2,4 | - | 1,3 | |
Did not answer survey | 4,4 | 1,2 | 2,6 | 1,7 | 11 | - | 3,6 | 1,6 | 6,2 | |
Don't know | 2,7 | 3,2 | 1,1 | 1,4 | 2 | 9,5 | 3,8 | 2,2 | 2,5 | |
Not registered to vote | 1 | - | 0,9 | - | - | 0,2 | 0,4 | 1,6 | 0,4 | |
Source: IPSOS Archived (6 October 2014) |
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Ritchie333 ( talk · contribs) 13:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm happy to review this.
From a cursory look at the article, it looks complete and well-referenced, which is what I would expect from an article detailing a modern political event. One of the problems I see is that a lot of the pose has obviously been added in real-time by editors, so we're left with list that read "On [date], [event]. On [date 2], [event 2]". For a good article, this will need to be copyedited to be more easily readable to someone looking at the election in a historical context. I don't think this is an insurmountable problem, though.
As you're on break, I'm happy to put the review on the back-burner and work on it in the background, with the idea that it will be finished awaiting feedback on your return in the New Year. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
* Normally I'd say "it'll be worth an explanation of who 'x' is", but in the case of
Nelson Mandela I'm going to assume the reader knows exactly who he was, so that isn't relevant here.
* The article body lists many controversies and public reactions. I think it would be good to put a sample of these in the lead, though I'm not sure myself which are the most important.
Comments on the body will follow. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:12, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
* "Two hundred members are elected from national party lists" - this fact is not in actually in the source given at the end of the paragraph, though I suspect nobody with a reasonable knowledge of South African politics would challenge this
* The remainder of information in this section is unsourced. Again, this likely to not fall into the "information challenged or likely to be challenged" for a South African, but it probably does for foreign readers not familiar with the system. A citation to the basic makeup of politics would be useful for a reader to learn more.
* The first four paragraphs are unsourced. A similar problem to above - this really need citations
* "33 parties had registered candidates for the national parliamentary election" - the source also says that this was a record number of parties, a fact which would be worth including
* This section contains several entries that are not obviously sourced
* "NUMSA plans to establish" - I think for consistency, using the past tense would be more preferable here
* As I hinted above, this section reads too much like a bulleted list eg : "On 6 February 2014" ... "On 11 March 2014" .... "On 12 March 2014". For a long-term encyclopaedic view, you probably don't need the exact dates. I would cut out the dates and list the facts in chronological order, ideally combining individual sentences together
* "A Financial Mail editorial published on the same day, which cites ... state" - this should use past tense. Same problem with the next sentence.
* This section can probably be merged with the "Electoral system" section above
* "On the weekends of 9–10 November 2013 and 8–9 February 2014 all voting stations were opened for new voters to register and for those who moved residence to re-register in their new voting district." - this claim doesn't appear to be cited in the next inline reference (in the sentence after)
* "approximately 2.3 million new voters" - why then, does
the Business Day live source say it's about 1 million. If sources contradict the figure, use "between 1 and 2 million" or some variation, including all figures listed in sources.
* "and are aged 18 or older will be eligible to vote for the first time" - should be past tense, the election's been and gone
* "The following table shows the largest voting stations abroad" - per
WP:LIST, this would be better represented in prose. I'd pick off London as being the most significant place for ex-pat voting, include Dubai and Canberra, and group the remainder as "other".
WP:CALC says you're on safe grounds adding up individual figures given in sources as long as it's clear that the information can be verified and recalculated by anyone.
* There's too much whitespace at the start of this section. I'd put the table inline with the prose, using the "thumb" parameter
Done Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Done Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
* The "Debates" section should be rewritten as prose
* "Approximately 27,000 South Africans registered to participate in the national election in the international voting phase" - this is redundant, we were told this in the "Voter registration" section
* The "Election-related offences" and "Incidents" sub-sections are both quite small and can probably be combined
* The last sentence in this subsection could be combined with the previous one.
* "Former President Thabo Mbeki cast a special vote on 6 May as he was attending a World Economic Forum meeting in Nigeria on 7 May" - as we've mentioned several dates here, the last "on 7 May" could be written as "on polling day" instead to avoid repetition
* "The local special vote phase of the election took place on 5–6 May 2014, accommodating over 295,000 voters" - I can't find the 295,000 voters figure anywhere in the two sources cited
* I wouldn't bother mentioning "7 May" anywhere in the section; we know what the date is having been told it several times earlier
Removed. Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Done. Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Fixed Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Fixed Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Sorted by continent putting Africa at the top. Nathan121212 ( talk) 21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
*
King Abdullah of Jordan is a disambiguation page - this should be
Abdullah II of Jordan, though I would pipe the link to say "King Abdullah of Jordan" anyway
Done
Nathan121212 (
talk)
21:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
* "BBC's Andrew Harding said that there was no massive change in the elections compared to previous years" - the source also mentions that support for the ANC dropped since 2009, and that he thought the party had "spun" their 62% of the vote as a victory despite the many controversies (most listed in this article). That's worth working into the article.
* This section has quite a few short sentences. It would be worth combining them.
* "demanding the release of the suspects arrested on 8 May 2014" - use "the previous day" instead of the specific date here
@ Nathan121212: - I've gone through the points I raised earlier and checked them against what you've done. I've struck off everything that I agree is now resolved, copyedited a few things in the process. It looks like the main thing is the formatting and stripping out some of the lists, and getting rid of some of the tables. Once that's resolved, I think we'll be a lot closer to a GA. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
@ Ritchie333: I have now split the article. If you can offer any advice for the intro in both articles, it would be appreciated. Nathan121212 ( talk) 13:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 17:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
There is a discussion in progress on Talk:2024_South_African_general_election#Infobox_legislative_election_instead_of_Infobox_election which supposedly affects this page and "all elections in South Africa since 1994, not just the 2024 elections." Wowzers122 ( talk) 06:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)