# Talk:Day of Reconciliation

I see no reason why expansion to the history of the holiday, as long as it is well sourced and NPOV, shouldn't be accepted as it in fact has been reverted. Describing the history of the holiday isn't POV in and of itself; see Battle of Blood River, etc. Therefore I am now going to change it back to the version which that other editor had set it to, the version with expanded history. Invmog (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I reverted it to that edit but I also restored the pro-ANC content and then I went back and put in more links and I think if we can more more reliable external links and lots of references then we should be good to go. Invmog (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
This article needs serious work because I just found a site where much of it has been copied from. I'll work in it some. Invmog (talk) 20:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
I think it's a lot better now. Invmog (talk) 22:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not better.  If you want to expand on the history of Day of the Vow, there's a long and detailed page about that already. (And it's not "pro-ANC" content either.) Zaian (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Yup, you're right; thanks! Invmog (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

"Afrikaner" is a weak term in the sense of this article.  The term itself was applied to the white peoples of South Africa by the British during the colonial days and is a generalization that includes three groups: the indigenous Boer people, the Cape Dutch Settlers, and the white British settlers.  For the sake of precision I've changed "Afrikaner" to "Boer", since it was distinctly the Boer people that had fled the colonial life and came into conflict with the Zulus during their migration away from the British Empire (known as the Great Trek).Alutard (talk) 23:17, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your edit. It was us, the Boers. Invmog (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Would it not be more correct to use the term "Voortrekkers (Dutch:pioneers)" as  the Dutch-speakers who took the vow had not yet settled to do any farming. Martinvl (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi everybody. On behalf of the teams behind the Wikipedia Primary School research project, I would like to announce that this article was selected a while ago to be reviewed by an external expert. We'd now like to ask interested editors to join our efforts and improve the article before August 31, 2015 (any timezone) as they see fit; a revision will be then sent to the designated expert for review. Any notes and remarks written by the external expert will be made available on this page under a CC-BY-SA license as soon as possible, so that you can read them, discuss them and then decide if and how to use them. Please sign up here to let us know you're collaborating.
Thanks a lot for your support! --Elitre (WPS) (talk) 06:10, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi all. As anticipated, some weeks ago Dr.Stephen Lowry agreed to review this article within the scope of the project linked above. You can find her notes in the PDF I just uploaded to Commons. We'd like to thank Dr. Lowry for his work and for his helpful notes. We invite everybody to feel free to reuse the review to improve the article and/or to comment it here.  Best, Anthere (talk) 15:03, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Doing some preliminary checking regarding starting GA review, I immediately found dead links; fixed one, tagged the next since it was not found in web archive. If these issues could be fixed the article would receive a PASS from me since it appears to be clear and concise.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 16:07, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Day of Reconciliation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161026000004/http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/9acbc1004af64e28b77cb72f1282c98c/Mpumalanga-Reconciliation-Day-celebrations-display-cultural-diversity- to http://www.sabc.co.za/news/a/9acbc1004af64e28b77cb72f1282c98c/Mpumalanga-Reconciliation-Day-celebrations-display-cultural-diversity-
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:05, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Day of Reconciliation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131215044422/http://anc.org.za/show.php?id=3646 to http://anc.org.za/show.php?id=3646
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Day of Reconciliation/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: BlackJack (talk · contribs) 18:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Can't believe this has been sat there since last October. I'll take a shot at it, especially as the South African cricket team are in England at present. Leave it with me for now. Jack | talk page 18:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)


### Checks
No need to worry about Wikipedia:WIAGA#Immediate_failures so I'll add the GA criteria list now, everything set to default  = "don't know yet". Jack | talk page 19:07, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

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 embedded lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable with no original research?
A. Has an appropriate reference section: 

B. Inline citations to reliable sources where necessary (e.g., direct quotations): 

C. No original research: 

D. No copyright violations: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Scope: 

B. Length: 

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: 


### Comments
1. One of the first things I looked for, given the history of RSA, was point 4 – neutrality. In this respect, the article is extremely fair and clearly states the importance of the date to both Africans and Afrikaaners. It also passes point 5 – stability. Jack | talk page 19:16, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
2. Use of the national flag is a good idea. Images are optional, really, but they are useful if they are relevant. Given Desmond Tutu's speech on the holiday in its inaugural year, I've added his portrait which is an approved image. I think that if the article can be expanded, you should consider adding another image if it reaches 20k. This means it passes point 6. Jack | talk page 19:41, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
3. The article is well written and I just made one or two tweaks to the narrative. I assume, incidentally, that "apartheid" in South Africa is always written as "Apartheid"? I'm very impressed by the due diligence shown as regards WP:V with everything sourced and inline citations throughout. I'm passing points 1 and 2. Jack | talk page 19:52, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
4. Point 3 is the tricky one here because we're looking for "broad in coverage" and it is a short article, though with a topic like this it's difficult to expand it without introducing a lot of waffle. It is 12.8k but, personally, I couldn't care less if it were only 2.8k as long as it covers its entire scope. Certainly, WP:SCOPE is not a problem at all. I think, however, that on balance I'd like to see more in the introduction (the "lead", if you prefer). The intro effectively summarises "Date and observance" but not the remainder so I'm going to request a second paragraph in the intro which concisely summarises "Origins" and I'm leaving point 3B open for now. I'll place the article on hold and diarise it for the end of the month. Thanks very much. Jack | talk page 20:05, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

BlackJack, if I understand correctly, we just need to expand the article some more. I'll work on that today. Thanks for taking the time to review the article. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl Anything else you can add to the article will be fine but it's actually the introduction (lead) that needs to be expanded a little because it doesn't say anything about the coverage in the "Origins" section. Thanks again. Jack | talk page 09:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
BlackJack, thank you for your feedback! I've expanded the article in general and also the lead. I'm going to admit that I don't often feel like I am a very good lead-writer, so I would appreciate any criticisms you have! Thank you again! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Megalibrarygirl Hello again and well done. The lead is fine and so are the additions to the narrative. I'm pleased to be able to pass the article as GA standard. All the best. Jack | talk page 17:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Happy dance! Thank you, BlackJack! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:14, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Bojanala 41.13.68.214 (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Assistan referees 102.217.178.78 (talk) 21:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)