# Talk:Squatting in the Czech Republic

This review is transcluded from Talk:Squatting in the Czech Republic/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: RoySmith (talk · contribs) 23:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting the review now.  To get a few simple things out of the way fast, all the images appear to be appropriately licensed, but could do with more descriptive captions.  Earwig doesn't find any copyvios.
Looking at the sources, I'm concerned about the two citations to ladronka.cz.  I don't read Czech, so I'm relying on Google Translate.  It an "in-line skating portal"?  That doesn't really sound like a WP:RS to me.In any case, for the benefit of our English readers, could you provide translations of the relevant passages in the citation (as well as for the others in Czech)?  WP:LANGCITE (especially point #3) may be helpful here.

Oh, never mind about the ladronka.cz stuff; I had clicked through to Ladronka and was looking at that :-)  But the rest of my comment about providing translations still holds.
I've translated the Czech citation titles and looked around for MoS guidance on what else to do but didn't find much. I read WP:NONENG as saying I should provide translations of any foreign quotes in the text, which doesn't apply here. Mujinga (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, that's an improvement.  The translated titles at least give an English-only reader something to go on. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I probably won't have time to dig into this much deeper until tomorrow, but wanted to get this started.


### Lead
The first sentence leaves me cold because that's what "squatting" is, not what "squatting in the Czech Republic" is.  The first sentence should say something about what makes the CR different.  Maybe reshuffle the first two sentences into "Squatting in the Czech Republic became a political phenomenon after the 1989 Velvet Revolution.  Unused or derelict property in many cities were occupied without the permission of the owner.
i'm not averse to this change but i've used it as a standard intro for 'squatting in X' pages so i wonder if it's necessary and would like to discuss it a bit more. Squatting in the Netherlands is for example a GA which begins "Squatting in the Netherlands (Dutch: kraken) is the occupation of unused or derelict buildings or land without the permission of the owner". Mujinga (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm, well, I don't think it works on the Netherlands page either :-)  I can see your point.  "To squat" has a variety of meanings.  It could be Squatting position or Squat (exercise) (or maybe some other things) and your version certainly does define which meaning we're talking about.  But it still bothers me that you're giving the generic definition for squatting, without saying anything (at least in that sentence) about what makes it special in the Czech Republic.
What about: Squatting (the occupation of unused property without the permission of the owner) became a political phenomenon in the Czech Republic after the Velvet Revolution of 1989.  I was previously under the impression that WP:MOS insisted on repeating the article title in bold, but reading MOS:FIRST, it says, if the article title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of dynamic loudspeakers—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text..  I think that applies here. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:59, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure it doesn't have to be bolded, I've changed it Mujinga (talk) 13:33, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I added in the "many cities" part because that summarizes "appeared in cities across Czechoslovakia" in a later section, but all the examples I see discussed were in Prague.  Are there examples from other cities?  Would it make sense to say something like, "Mostly in Prague, but also in other cities"?
I like your suggestion but i'm not sure about adding "many cities". "Mostly in Prague, but also in other cities" sounds a bit like original research Mujinga (talk) 15:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
What's there now is fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


### History
It seems odd that a communist state would have a law protecting private property.  It might be worth expanding a bit on this.  Or at least, highlight the dichotomy: "Although ... a communist state ... private property was protected by ...."  I'd also change the section name from "History" to "Communist Era".
The source doesn't really get into it. Changed the section name! Mujinga (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
"evicted by police in December 1992, then re-squatted."  When did the re-squatting happen?  The next day, as soon as the police left?  Years later?  Somewhere in-between?
source says several weeks later Mujinga (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
"By 1997, the squatters had achieved legalisation," this is a little confusing.  Are we specifically talking about the squat that was evicted in December 1992?  If so, maybe this could be broken up into different paragraphs, each one about a single squat.
yep it's all about Pplk. Sochora infoshop until we move to "Other occupations". Hopefully with the rewrite it becomes clearer Mujinga (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
furore --> furor
that is I suppose a BR/US eng thing? This is in BR english Mujinga (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure, if it's British, that's fine (like we talked about on WT:GOCE), but I still think adding {{British English}} will clear up confusion like this. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
oh yes happy to add that on the talk page, i was confused because the article itself already has "Use British English" on it Mujinga (talk) 13:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
reflecting on this, i'm happy to add it but by the same token all EN-wiki pages written in US-eng should have {{American English}} as well since I certainly don't expect pages to be in US-english Mujinga (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, not a big deal, and I guess you do have a point :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


### Post-Communism
Link Berlin
would rather not per MOS:OVERLINK Mujinga (talk) 15:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
My first thought was, "why link Amsterdam, but not Berlin?", but now I see you've linked not to Amsterdam, but to Squatting in the Netherlands.  I'd change the link text to be "activists inspired by squatting movements in Amsterdam and Berlin..." so people aren't surprised because the link target isn't the same as the link text. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
ah i see, yes changed Mujinga (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Link neo-Nazis
ok Mujinga (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


### 2010s
"when the building was again evicted.".  The building wasn't evicted, the occupants were.  You could say, "the building was cleared".  Or "the building's occupants were evicted".
i disagree on that, I'll take it to the discussion, thanks for linking me! Mujinga (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
"The buildings were all quickly evicted", same as above.
ditto Mujinga (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
"reacted positively to the spectacular".  The word "spectacular" is an opinion.  It should be in quotes, and cited to the specific person who called it that: "the mainstream media reacted positively to the actions, with Joe Reporter of the Big Prague Newspaper calling them "spectacular", for example.
i meant spectacular in the literal sense, like they weren't planned as actually occupations, more like day-long protests. just checking what the source says ... Mujinga (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
rewritten and changed spectacular to symbolic, hopefully that works better Mujinga (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
"It was quickly evicted".  Same issue as before (buildings don't get evicted), but before you go changing it, I've asked for a second opinion on that.
ah ok i was wondering what Jonesey95's "fix sentence per GOCE talk page discussion" edit summary was about. i have to say that was an overhasty edit both per the current discussion and leaving the phrase "then re-squatted" not making sense, so i've changed it in the rewrite already but am happy to see what the discussion brings Mujinga (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
"it was granted a one year contract", I would think "lease" would be a better word than "contract" here, but I suppose either would be OK.  They have slightly different meanings.  A lease is a specific type of contract.
i'll check what the source says! Mujinga (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
source says " the Finance Minister stepping in, offering a one-year rent-free contract on behalf of the department-owner, starting on March 2, 2015" so i guess i'd rather keep "contract". the klinika story is quite complex! Mujinga (talk) 16:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, that's all I see on a first read-through.  Work through my suggestions and I'll come back and take another look.

great thanks for the careful review, i'll ping when i've answered everything Mujinga (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
RoySmith thanks for the comments, I've answered everything fully except the bit where we are waiting on the GOCE discussion. Mujinga (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, I think we're pretty close.  Make the next round of changes and I'll come back tomorrow or so and give it another read-through.  I also touched up one of your photos :-)
great, i've replied to everything again and also given the article a quick copyedit since on keyword searching for "evict" i thought it came up too many times. i changed the instance where i said the building was evicted to "cleared", hopefully that reads better now. nice one on the pic, i could immediately see the difference! Mujinga (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)


### Wrap up
I'm going to go ahead and mark this as passed.  This is a really interesting article about a subject I previously didn't even know existed.  Thanks for writing it.  I'm still not entirely happy with the treatment of "article 249a", so I'll leave you with a possible replacement for that paragraph as an entirely optional suggestion, which won't block my calling this done:
After World War II, Czechoslovakia became a communist state.  During this era, there was no organised squatting movement, only people occupying derelict spaces as a place to live in times of desperation.  In 1961, article 249a of the Czech Criminal Code was adopted, prohibiting the unauthorized occupation of private property.  This would become one of the most important events which drove the growth of the Czech squatting movement, distinct from similar movements in Western Europe. (you'll need to add linking and the citation)

Thanks for the review! I like your suggestion but I don't know if I can source it, since article 249a is only mentioned in passing by Novák and Pixová. All the best! Mujinga (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

There are over one billion squatters worldwide and the phenomenon is under-represented on Wikipedia. Join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Squatting to help write articles about squatting in every country, or drop a message on the talkpage about something else you'd like to see covered. This is just one of many ways to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia! Mujinga (talk) 14:56, 29 November 2021 (UTC)