Talk:Kgari Sechele II

Kgari Sechele II is currently a Royalty, nobility and heraldry good article nominee. Nominated by Thebiguglyalien (talk) at 04:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Short description: Kwena chief (1892–1939)

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance). Africa: Botswana Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Botswana (assessed as Mid-importance). This article was created or improved during the "African 10,000 Challenge", which started in 1 September 2016 and is still continuing. You can help!

This review is transcluded from Talk:Kgari Sechele II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 04:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Simongraham (talk · contribs) 15:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This looks an interesting article on a topic that has been historically often poorly covered in encyclopaedias. I will start a review shortly. simongraham (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will start with some general comments.

• Overall, the standard of the article is high.
• It is of adequate length, with 1,432 words of readable prose.
• The lead is reasonable given the length of the article at 135 words.
• Authorship is 99,9% from the nominator.
• It is currently assessed as a B class article.

The six good article criteria:

1. It is reasonable well written.

   the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct;

   • The writing is clear and appropriate.
   • Add a comma after "but this did not occur" as the clauses are independent.
   • Please put commas around "Neale Sechele" in "The court determined that Kgari's younger brother Neale Sechele would become kgosi".
   • Please reword "Claims were made by two members of the family: Moruakgomo, who was Sebele II's son, and Bonewamang, who was the son of Sebele II and Kgari's older brother Padi". It seems to imply that Bonewamang was the son of both Sebele II and Padi.
   • I can see no other obvious spelling or grammar errors.

   it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead, layout and word choice.

   • It seems to comply with the Manuals of Style.

   it contains a reference section, presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;

   • A reference section is included, with sources listed.

   all inline citations are from reliable sources;

   • Sources are reputable. Spot checks confirm Mbuya 1999, Ramsay 1996 and Griffiths 1997 cover the topic.

   it contains no original research;

   • All sentences are cited.

   it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism;

   • Earwig and Turnitin gives a 8.3% chance of copyright violation, which means it is very unlikely.

2. It is broad in its coverage

   it addresses the main aspects of the topic.

   • Key facts are covered.

   it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

   • The article is compliant.

3. It has a neutral point of view.

   it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to different points of view.

   • The article seems generally balanced.
   • Are there variations of his name that should be included? For example, Stevens 1975 p. 88 gives his name as Kgosi Khari Sechele II[[1]].
   • Ramsay 1996 emphasises the Colonial administration as the main actor more than the article, and mentions that they unsuccessfully tried to bribe Mosarwa. The more recent writing seems to place the emphasis more on Kgari. Is it worth mentioning some of the political machinations?

4. It is stable.

   it does not change significantly from day to day because of any ongoing edit war or content dispute.

   • There is no evidence of edit wars.

5. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   images are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content;

   • There are no images

   images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

   • Are there any images that are possible to include? There are a number of illustrations showing Kgari in many of the books. It would be great to have one.

@Thebiguglyalien: Thank you for an interesting article. Please take a look at my comments above and ping me when you would like me to take another look. simongraham (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

simongraham I can't find any other examples of Khari, it might be an error in that source. Regarding the administration, I gathered that the more recent sources were fixing the previous Anglocentrism, and the bribery thing seems more appropriate for an article on Mosarwa. Were there any particular images you saw? I assume they're probably under copyright, but maybe non-free use is possible. I've made the suggested grammar changes. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:22, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]