Talk:De Vloek

De Vloek has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: June 6, 2022. (Reviewed version).

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands

Squatting Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Squatting, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of squatting 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.SquattingWikipedia:WikiProject SquattingTemplate:WikiProject Squattingsquatting
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from De Vloek appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 21 June 2022 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Dutch squatters fighting eviction from De Vloek (The Curse) briefly occupied Scheveningen Pier?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2022/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/De Vloek.

Wikipedia

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Etriusus (talk · contribs) 00:51, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mujinga:, starting this GA review. Please use the Done, ~~Strikethrough~~, or some other format of indicating a problem has been resolved.

Lead

'when a political struggle over the eviction began' Be more specific on what happened
The article goes into depth later on and this is not reflected in the lead
expanded
'...the Scheveningen Pier was briefly occupied' Highlight the relevance of this point (say it was in protest), this sentence seems out of place without context.
done Mujinga (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Activities

'Carrying on from De Blauwe Aanslag' Was De Vloek occupied as a direct result/action of De Blauwe Aanslag? The current sentence implies this but is still unclear.
- yes - I'll add another cite to make that clear Mujinga (talk) 11:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'decided to tolerate the occupation' Why?
- the quote says "The policy of the Municipality of The Hague with regard to temporarily vacant real estate offers the possibility to temporarily loan buildings to cultural initiatives, for example under certain conditions" so i'll add they saw it as a cultural project Mujinga (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'hundreds of people' Specify if this was hundreds of squatters or members of the public who were attending
- the quote says "Wekelijks komen honderden mensen" = "Hundreds of people come every week" so I'd rather not go beyond the source Mujinga (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Eviction

'break clause' Link or define this.
- linked! Mujinga (talk) 12:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
' they announced the Vloek' Who announced? The squatters I assume.
- "Other Vloek participants" which is the subject of the previous sentence. I'm hesitant to say "the squatters" since some went the legal path and some decided to resist the eviction
' paint bombs' link
- not seeing a link?
'They placed a shipping...' Who?
- "the Mobiele Eenheid (Dutch riot police)" which is the subject of the previous sentence Mujinga (talk) 12:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
'also requesting a fine for a fifth person' Clarify.
- not sure how to clarify, since the source says "Tegen een vijfde verdachte werd alleen een geldboete geëist." = "Only a fine was demanded against a fifth suspect."
Any follow-up on what happened to the building afterward?
- Hmm yes despite it being in the infobox as demolished, there wasn't a referenced update in the text so I've rectified that Mujinga (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images

No issues noted with the images. A reverse image search of the graffiti only finds the Flickr image online. Fair use rationale is given.

Copyvio check

Earwig check has found nothing.

Sources

No dead links detected
Sources 1 and 5 are repeat citations with different cited quotes. Looks good, even if slightly unorthodox.
A bit of translating has been done, and sourcing looks good at face value. I can't determine if every source is reliable, as I don't know what the Dutch wiki's criteria are for reliability, but I'll take it on good faith.

Overall

Thanks for taking this on, should be able to reply to comments later today or tomorrow. Mujinga (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That was fun working through the comments; I think I've answered everything now - Mujinga (talk) 12:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Mujinga: Perfect. I went ahead and did a bit of clarifying work on my own. Genuinely surprised that 'paint bomb' doesn't have its own article. I'll give the article one final pass before signing off on it, well done.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
Prose is fine; article broadly meets standards of MOS.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
Sources are reliable, and appropriate for this type of article; several were checked against the statements they supported with no issues found.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Article has broad coverage with appropriate level of details.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
Yes
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
Yes
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
All images have licenses making them available for use in this article, they are used appropriately, and have useful captions.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 18:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that Dutch squatters fighting eviction from De Vloek briefly occupied Scheveningen Pier? Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160305011820/http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/224/BINNENLAND/article/detail/3714833/2014/08/07/ME-ontruimt-gekraakte-Scheveningse-Pier.dhtml
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Dun dun duuun!
- Comment: De Vloek in Dutch means The Curse in English. Adding "the" to "De Vloek" would effectively mean "The the curse". I'm saying this to avoid the error added at a late point to Template:Did you know nominations/Het Nieuwe Instituut when " that Het Nieuwe Instituut (pictured) has over 18 kilometres of architectural archives?" became "that the archive at the Het Nieuwe Instituut (pictured) contains more than 18 km (11 mi) of architectural resources?"

Created by Mujinga (talk). Self-nominated at 17:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

General: Article is new enough and long enough
New enough: Long enough:

Policy compliance:

Adequate sourcing:
Neutral:
Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

Cited:
Interesting:
Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall:

This is ready for promotion. On a side note, it's disappointing that the Het Nieuwe Instituut hook was changed in that way after I promoted the hook as-is. SL93 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC) SL93 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]