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 (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Bilorv ( talk · contribs) 14:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
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2 headers, and it makes the chronology a bit obfuscated, as does the section "Recent events" which will quickly fall out-of-date.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:
|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.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)
Alright, thanks for the reply. The structure is looking good, so I've moved onto some comments about the prose and referencing:
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)
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)
|at=
works nicely!
Mujinga (
talk)
14:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)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.
Some people are unable to return to their country of origin ...? — Bilorv ( talk) 17:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
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?
... 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".
Femke Halsema started serving ...– Same here, some description of Halsema would be ideal.
The Vluchtkerk was occupied (eventually with permission)– Permission from whom?
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 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 ....
In April 2019, Fortune M. was ...— Who? One of We Are Here?
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)
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.
For example, a spokesperson for the group, Jone is given as an example of one of the people who gained a residence permit
had gained residence permits by 2017, as Jone got the permit in 2018. — Bilorv ( talk) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
and to set upreads better than without the 'to'
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.
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.
running together the words, Vluchtelingen (migrants) and Bouwmaati 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
[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)
"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
In April 2019, the member of the collective Fortune M.i don't think the first 'the' does much there
Mujinga ( talk) 14:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC) A few more points:
75 others took the opportunitybut
165 people who stayed in the prison– why the difference between the two figures?
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.
In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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 (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Bilorv ( talk · contribs) 14:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
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:
|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.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)
Alright, thanks for the reply. The structure is looking good, so I've moved onto some comments about the prose and referencing:
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)
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)
|at=
works nicely!
Mujinga (
talk)
14:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)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.
Some people are unable to return to their country of origin ...? — Bilorv ( talk) 17:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
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)
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?
... 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".
Femke Halsema started serving ...– Same here, some description of Halsema would be ideal.
The Vluchtkerk was occupied (eventually with permission)– Permission from whom?
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 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 ....
In April 2019, Fortune M. was ...— Who? One of We Are Here?
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)
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.
For example, a spokesperson for the group, Jone is given as an example of one of the people who gained a residence permit
had gained residence permits by 2017, as Jone got the permit in 2018. — Bilorv ( talk) 17:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
and to set upreads better than without the 'to'
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.
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.
running together the words, Vluchtelingen (migrants) and Bouwmaati 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
[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)
"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
In April 2019, the member of the collective Fortune M.i don't think the first 'the' does much there
Mujinga ( talk) 14:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC) A few more points:
75 others took the opportunitybut
165 people who stayed in the prison– why the difference between the two figures?
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.
In articles, the original text is usually included with the translated text when translated by Wikipedians.
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)
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)