# Talk:Boerehaat

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)

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

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. HelenOnline 21:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


### 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)

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.
HelenOnline 15:35, 15 April 2016 (UTC)