Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Africa/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

South Africa[edit]

Self-nomination. This article was recently up for Featured Article (old discussion here) status, but it failed. Unfortunately, I did not have enough time to respond to all the comments made before it failed. There was significant discussion over the fact that the infobox is near the bottom of the lead section, and not the top. However, WikiProject Countries has their template of style with the infobox at the bottom, but User:Ta bu shi da yu and I attempted to move the infobox as far forward as possible, with one edit placing the infobox at the top, but this was decided by both of us to look terrible so we attempted to move it down while including the image. Other things were changed, such as more links and more categories, as well as edits to the history and culture section. Thanks! Páll 00:05, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • Usually I'd be against a new nomination so soon after it ended, but I felt Paul did not have adequate time to answer concerns. Support just as before. Mike H 01:34, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Support - This time I support since the issues that I pointed out (in the last FAC) have been addressed. Squash 06:26, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)'
  • Supported this at the previous nomination; supporting it now. Jeronimo 07:40, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support — all issues that I pointed out in the last FAC have been adressed. but I've changed my vote to object until the serious copyright issues pointed out by Henrygb are adressed. — mark ✎ 10:02, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, again. Dewet 11:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, Alot of work has been put into this article. A great improvement --Jcw69 13:41, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks! Object. See my embedded HTML comments in the article. Neutralitytalk 14:44, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • I think I've responded to your comments sufficiently. Páll 15:11, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
      • Say, could you add a bit about the minimum voting age in the "government" section? Also, a military section and a few sentences about cusine/art/cinema in the "Culture" section would be nice. Neutralitytalk 04:06, Mar 4, 2005 (UTC)
Just for clarification, do you support now? Páll 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
We've still got some more issues to work out. For example, the sentence "The SANDF is extensively involved in peacekeeping operations in other parts of the continent" bothers me; I'd like to see some examples. See User:Neutrality/workshop for a transcript of some IRC comments. Neutralitytalk 05:02, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Note: examples on South African National Defence Force page. The size constraints (see other votes) limit enumerating. -- Dbroadwell 02:44, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object: for reasons mostly pertaining to the lead section:
  • Look at the sentences in the first paragraph: "The Republic of South Africa is... / The South African economy is... / South Africa is... / South Africa has... / South Africa has... / South Africa ... posessed... / South Africa is...". Starting each sentence with the same words makes the intro sound bitty, reading like a fact sheet—it does not have the markings of brilliant prose. Try to rephrase, reword and refactor so that it becomes an engaging piece of text that guides the reader into the article. Cut down on the number of times "South Africa" is used.
  • The lead section contains multiple POV statements, which should either be removed or neutralised:
  • "South Africa is also arguably the most stable democracy in Africa": How does one measure the stability of a democracy? The use of the word "arguably" makes it a POV statement by definition.
  • "South Africa has become an important force for diplomacy": Important to whom?
  • "South Africa has the [...] most efficient military in Africa": How is the efficiency of a military measured?
  • "South Africa is now a racially unified country": The formal abolishment of apartheid law does not make a unified country overnight. The main article itself states that an economic divide remains. Does everbody agree that the country is truly racially unified?
  • "South Africa has become a vibrant [...] society": What's the measure of vibrancy? Would someone living in poverty in the country agree with that assessment?
  • "sustained economic growth must occur in order to lift millions out of poverty": OK, this might be a case of semantics, but the "must" makes it sound as if the author is giving an advice to the SA government. "is needed" might be a better choice of words.
  • The first paragraph ends with "South Africa is now a racially unified country...". The next paragraph begins with "South Africa was first unified...". The two unified's have a different meaning in the two sentences (if I'm not mistaken), which could lead to confusion. Try to reword one of them.
  • The lead paragraph mentions SA has the largest military in Africa and once had nuclear weapons, but the rest of the article offers no information at all about this topic. As the lead section is seen as a summary of the rest of the article, this sets up an expectation that is not delivered upon.
Thanks. --Plek 18:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your great comments, but the lead section has been completely rewritten and trimmed down, and no longer contains your objectional statements. Would you mind looking again? Páll 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome. The lead section is much better now. Changing my vote to support. --Plek 00:45, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak Support Object — While I'm glad that most of my previous objections are resolved, I find the leadin section too long. Also, the page size stands at 40kb and I would like to see it shortened to near about 30kb, so that the article makes better reading -- focussing on main points rather than extraneous details. Nichalp 20:24, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
The lead section has been rewritten, however the article is not too long. Look at History of Russia, another Featured Article, for examples of length. There are articles two times this length that have been nominated. Páll 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
A long article is certainally very putting off. A summary of main topics should be how such articles should be written. I'm sure the article can be further shortened by précis just like India was shortened. The India page coveys maximum information and at the same time has a healthy page size. Lead-in is now OK, but I wont support until the size is cut down. Nichalp 20:34, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)
The article has been shortened from 42k down to 34k. There's really not much more that can be cut. I hope this is acceptable. Páll 02:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
That's much better, I'll offer full support if you remove the indentations before {Main articles}. Nichalp
  • Support. A lot of good fixes. While, like any article, it could be improved more, what is there is very good and looks well researched. Object. Though I'm close to supporting. The lead section is too long, but not something I'd object over. As to the length of the article, some articles 2x this length have been promoted. Now to my objection, the culture section is very long (too long) and really only touches on the race and language points. What about all the other elements of culture such as dance, music, food, etc.? Oh yeah, and I agree with Plek's comments. - Taxman 21:37, Mar 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • I added much more contnet to the culture section. 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Ok, yes that is much better. Now I've noticed a few more things. The orphan paragraph at the end of the lead section could stand to be merged in somewhere or expanded a little, perhaps with other problems facing South Africa. The other issue is the 'Names' section does not really talk much at all about the names for South Africa, even though it lists names of SA as the main article for the section. Instead it mostly just talks about the different languages of the country. In an article this long, is the name for the country really one of the most important topics? Maybe rename the section Languages of SA and then discuss the naming issue as it relates to that. - Taxman 19:19, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
I just took care of what you mentioned. Thanks for paying attention to that. I removed the HIV/AIDS orphan information since it is proscriptive rather than descriptive, and is discussed later on in the article. I also renamed the Names section "Languages." There really isn't more information on the naming issue that hasn't already been discussed in taht section. Páll 23:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Henrygb 10:31, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC) There seems to be a copyright issue which has not been resolved in the talk page. Quoting from Wikipedia:Copyright_problems 31 January 2005: Geography from [1] Flora and fauna from [2].
Wow, I am embarassed that this happened. I just completely rewrote those sections as pere this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Africa&diff=0&oldid=10773831 Páll 20:13, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You have said the same thing using some different words. I will leave it to others to judge whether it is enough on copyright issues. --Henrygb 00:21, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support IMO, already of featured article quality. A couple of (helpful?) points: (1) with South Africa due to host the football World Cup in 2010, having hosted the most recent cricket World Cup, and being a big rugby union nation too, it would be nice to have something about its sporting credentials. (2) Also I agree it could do with a bit of shortening (by moving some articles to subpages), jguk 18:43, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support, After the work me and Pàll did last time. Inter\Echo 12:48, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Object. Please qualify the statement in the intro that "South Africa is one of the most ethnically diverse countries in Africa." What about Nigeria or the Congo? Neutralitytalk 17:57, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Uh, that's why it says one of the most ethnically diverse countries, not the most ethnically diverse. And it is, indeed, one of the most ethnically diverse countries in Africa.Pall (sorry, can't log in ... on a slow public computer)
Quantify it. :) Neutralitytalk 04:40, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Not to be mean, but are you arguing just for argument's sake? You're not being really helpful as to how this can be done. Mike H 07:33, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
No, I'm not. A sentence that says "South Africa is ethnically diverse" tells me nothing at all. Neutralitytalk 21:50, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, come on, I think the two facts below cover that issue as well as it can be. Unless you can come up with a reasonable way to resolve what you are asking for, I would submit that your objection is not actionable. - Taxman 15:47, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)
http://www.statssa.gov.za/ click on population census 2001 and build a bit of data the proves/disproves ethnic diversity. I'm not voting here, but it's a very good reference. -- Dbroadwell 00:23, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
From Dictionary.com: Quantify: To determine or express the quantity of. There is no way to express the quantity of diversity. None. The only way to do so occurs in that sentence, when it is stated that South Africa has the largest population of Indian people outside of India, as well as the largest white and coloured population in Africa. I cannot say South Africa is 37.8% diverse. Your insistance on such is assinine. I rewrote the military section, but there is nothing wrong with saying that South Africa is one of the most diverse countries in Africa. If one said the United States were one of the largest countries in the world, you wouldn't then have to list the total area of Canada, China, and Russia and explain the difference of percentages between them all. Culture and diversity are notoriously hard to measure. About 8-10 native languages are spoken in Belgium, but Belgium is not a diverse country at all, while New York city has many, many different races but most everyone speaks English. Which one is more diverse? That's why only stating that South Africa is ONE of the most diverse (which it is) countries in Africa is the only appropriate form. Because its impossible to determine the most diverse because such a term is subjective and relative. Páll 09:05, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
There is an example immediately after the statement you object to of South Africa's peacekeeping successes. Are your reasons for objecting factually based? Páll 02:31, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Rama 09:14, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support Rossrs 14:29, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support AND now that the article is at 34K some should be recontacted about their votes. -- Dbroadwell 02:36, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • WOW! Excellente. Support--ZayZayEM 02:58, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. I honestly say I didn't think we would be able to FA any country or big history of... articles so soon - and I am happy to be proven wrong. Two small notes: lead could be bigger and I think there are some templates/icons for the 'pronunciation' in the lead. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:06, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • You have done an excellent article may I add a few tit bits having been involved. 1: the Good Hope Plan for SA was pulished in 1980 a scant 20 years after a negotiated 50 years servitude to British Empire at the end of the 2nd Boer war. This was part of prolonged negotiations for a truly democratic South Africa Started as far back as 1972 between the dominant political parties and the Nationalist party. The reason we in South Africa had no bloody conflicts was because of the overall goodwill that exsisted at grassroots level. No Media or political hype could destroy that. Having said that, your date 1990 for the dismantleing of apartheid laws is a bit belated In 1980 we already started to abolish some laws that were discriminatory espescially the Mining Act of 1956. I know this as I was part of that excercise. Otherwise you have a great article. 196.2.124.251 11:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Andrew Swan[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/South_Africa/archive1&oldid=1057750848"