Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/South Africa/archive 1
Self-nomination. I think the South Africa article is one of the best examples that we have of an individual country's page. I think it is clearly written and informative. Thanks! Páll 10:40, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I've read through this article (Paul asked me to proofread it), and I've found it very impressive. The lead section is wonderful, the pictures are just great, the content is engaging but not too long-winded, and the references are plentiful. Wholeheartedly support. Mike H 10:44, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Great article in general.
I have a few points though before I can support.
Where does the biome region map come from and on what grounds is it GFDL? Are we sure it's not a copyvio?— mark ✎ 10:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- The biomes map comes from the public resource of Statistics South Africa. It is licensed under GFDL. Páll 15:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I would like the following statement to be explicitly attributed to a source: It is estimated that South Africa accounts for up to 25% of the GDP of the entire African continent, and that it produces around two thirds of the electricity used on the continent (from the Economy section). In fact there are plenty of other statements that could be attributed; if we have the references, why not refer to them?— mark ✎ 10:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- That one is easy. Even according to Economy of Africa, the GDP of Africa is 558 billion. South Africa's GDP is 160 billion. 160/558 = ,28%. So South Africa is actually 28% of Africa's economy. The electricity comment is harder to validate, however it is what we are taught in schools and we also keep Angola, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Swaziland, Lesotho, Naimibia, and Botswana with electricity as we produce 195,6 billion kWh compared to 75,6 billion by Egypt, Africa's second largest economy.Páll 15:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That was almost a self-reference, if it weren't for the fact that Economy of Africa does cite its sources: the figures come from UNDP and AFDB. Still, those electricity figures really need to be attributed to a source — how else does the reader know if he should trust Wikipedia? (see WP:Cite sources)— mark ✎ 11:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)- I cannot find any sources that would give accurate statistics about the electricity statement, however this list does indeed put South Africa as the largest electricity producer in all of Africa by far, so perhaps it can be reworded to just state that South Africa is Africa's largest energy producer. Páll 12:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea. — mark ✎ 13:58, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I rewrote the electricity section so that it no longer states the unverified "South Africa produces 2/3rds of Africa's electricity." Páll 21:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
From the 'Culture of' section: ...blacks ... usually speak English or Afrikaans in addition to their native tongue, which may be one of nine Bantu languages with official status since 1994.. This implies that there are no more native tongues than those nine official Bantu languages; in fact of course, there are a whole lot more languages; and not all are Bantu (cf. Khoi-San languages). It would be good to read something about those other languages. So, at least say something on the total number of languages found in South Africa; and about the two major different families (being Bantu and Khoi-San). Additionally, it would be good to point out the endangered status of many languages (and therefore cultures) of the latter family.— mark ✎ 10:21, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I agree with these statements, it was an oversimplification made on my part. I think I have corrected it. Páll 15:58, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- OK, those are good changes. I've done a slight copyedit. However, the German/Italian comparison is a bit obscure. Does it mean that the differences between Khoi-San and Bantu cultures are comparable to the difference between the German and Italian cultures? I wouldn't agree with that, if only because comparing cultures is highly problematic (but also just because I doubt the validity of that statement). Compare what is said in the 'Names' section about cultural identity of the Khoisan people. — mark ✎ 11:38, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I actually have another point: the history before 1652. Surely there is more to say than a list of the native tribes found there at that time. What's their history? For example, the Khoi and San people are thought to be the original inhabitants; the Bantu tribes have come only after the Bantu expansion (estimates vary as to the date of their arrival in Southern Africa).
- You're right, I will add more content to the history section. Páll 12:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- OK, I have greatly expanded the history section. Páll 21:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support - Well done Páll and all the others who worked hard on this article. You get my thumbs up. Just a small question which I placed on Talk:South_Africa --Jcw69 17:23, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- ~
Object. This is a very nice article, one of the better country articles that I have seen (I've worked on many in the distant past). However, I see two problems. 1) The politics section is a bit short. I would expect a little on the major parties, for example. 2) The international rankings section should go. It is currently very incomplete and POV. I would suggest to incorporate relevant data in the article itself (for example, GDP could go into the economy section). The others should probably just be removed (or put in the external links section). Jeronimo 11:02, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)- I agree with your suggestions about the politics section, and will change it. However, I disagree with your statements about the international rankings section. it is not POV if it is a factual list of rankings by international organisations. Australia has the same group of rankings. Can you explain why you think its POV? Páll 12:04, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- POV may not be the most appropriate term, but "International rankings" is certainly not complete (as you will agree). It does however, pretend to be complete, not linking to a deeper article. The choice of rankings is very subjective (or rather "we added what was available"), and therefore POV. Furthermore, the sources for these rankings are certainly not undisputable, while they are presented as being authorative. Finally, I think that if the rankings are of interest, they are better put in the sections, than in a separate "rankings" section. Jeronimo 13:03, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I removed the international rankings section after some thought. I wound up agreeing with you and what you said about it. And now the politics section has been expanded to talk about contemporary South African politics. Páll 21:12, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Support now, good work. However, I do note that the history section has been expanded. Care should be taken that it does not get too long; it is supposed to be a brief summary and introduction only, the real stuff should be in the History of South Africa. ~~
- Support, After some brainstorming and considerable changes by me and Páll. Inter 11:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Object
No coat of arms
- There's a coat of arms in the table
- OK, I see it now, after turning off Adblock in Mozilla Firefox
- Lacking lots of external links - needs culture websites, more official websites
- Excessive use of pictures
- Pictures is not a reason to reject an article for FA.
- Note the word, excessive... There is too many images in the article
- Lack of categorization
- What kind of categorisation are you talking about?
- Look at the bottom of the page there is only Category:South Africa, why not Category:African countries and other things.
- Exceesive use of templates at bottom of article
- The use of thos templates is common place and found in most every country article.
- Yes, but they are redundant
- Infobox is not at top, for consistency with other country articles
- Country infoboxes come at the bottom, see the already FA India
- That is an instance of one. But not for others, see a FA Cambodia...
- Squash 10:30, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but apart from the lack of links (I'd also like to point out that we have many more than India) none of the comments you made are valid reasons to object, or they are just completley untrue. Páll 10:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Actually India has more ext. links.
I never objected, I was always netural (even see page history) but I only listed some things you may look into at the article.Look at new comments above. I changed my vote to object, as there has been no attempts to satisfactorily address the issues that I pointed out. Squash 03:28, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Actually India has more ext. links.
- Object — layout too messy. Too many images. Is there a genuine need for so many images especially duplicate images for Jo'berg? One image per section should be more than enough. Try and balance the images instead of piling them up in one location especially with some that have different widths. The topics of South Africa template is simply too ugly. Take a look how the page looks at an 800x600 resolution, the standard resolution for most displays. The lead-in is too long it should be shorter and 2-3 paragraphs. The page size also is too big @ 39 kb. Consider compressing the text. Any why is a spacing there before the Main article titles? Nichalp 19:12, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)
- Object. Shorten introduction, place taxobox at the top of the page, limit the number of images to one per section, avoid overuse of vertical taxoboxes. -- AllyUnion (talk) 21:51, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- After some more changes and collaborational thinking by Páll and me, trimming a bit of text and taking out some more images, it looks even better. I can agree to a certain extent that the images could be a little excessive. We have taken steps to fix that. I'd like to point out that it's all Páll who should get all credit. Inter\Echo 23:49, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Images and Infoboxes adjusted since some previous votes representing work on a nicely complete article. --Dbroadwell 23:09, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Support. Although I'm biased, I do think that this article has been improved significantly to meet the requirements for FAs. Dewet 19:28, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)