Talk:Squatting in Kazakhstan/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: An anonymous username, not my real name (talk · contribs) 02:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe that this poor article has been stuck at GAN since June. I will get around to reviewing it shortly. An anonymous username, not my real name 02:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking it on! Mujinga (talk) 13:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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):
There is some awkward wording in some areas, on which I will elaborate below.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
See below for my spot checks on various sources. References appear good. Passed copyvio check. No OR.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
There could be more details provided in some instances.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images and their copyright statuses are good.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
Take a look at my feedback, but this article should be able to get passed with some moderate work.

Spot checks on some random statements:

When Kazakhstan became a republic in its own right in 1991, the ethnic Kazakhs were under 40 per cent of the total population
In 2021, the authorities announced that satellite observation had determined there were 400,000 examples of squatters across the country. ? — The source says there was "evidence of illegal squatting on 400,000 separate sites [emphasis mine]", while this article's wording implies 400,000 individual squatters. Additionally, it wouldn't hurt to mention that the source states that the satellite monitoring in question included over 500 cities.
rejigged, I can add something along the lines of "over 500 cities and villages" if you prefer, I orginally used "across the country" to avoid closeparaphrasing but I do see I've used that phrase twice in one paragraph Mujinga (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In consequence, Atabek was placed in solitary confinement, leading to protests from PEN International.
Most of the Shanyrak squatters remained in place and attempted to storm a council meeting in 2010, wanting to protest at how long their claims for land tenure were taking. ? — A quick scan of the source found no support for the claim that "most" stayed in place, nor does the source state or imply that the seventy individuals who clashed with police were all of the remaining squatters, as the current text does.
hmm yes see what you mean here, I'll have to check the sources Mujinga (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

rewritten to fit to source - i think i was summarising another source as well then forgot to add it, thanks for spotting the error! Mujinga (talk) 15:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Writing/grammar/prose advice:

There is no consistency for the usage of US/UK English; I see both "criticising" and "legalized".
another good spot, i even had "legalize" and "legalise"!? standardised now Mujinga (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The names of major cities should all be linked (keep in mind that an article can be linked from the lead and body separately).
agreed but not seeing what I've missed, Almaty is done and Shanyrak anad Bakay don't have wikiarticles Mujinga (talk) 10:36, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The very first sentence defines the general practice of squatting. It may be best to open with something about squatting in Kazakhstan specifically.
This is a hangover from when I was writing a number of 'Squatting in X' and was looking for a standard format to begin them with; other GA reviewers have also pushed back on this. I've rewritten the lead a bit and started by talking about housing in K Mujinga (talk) 16:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the 1980s onwards, migration brought many people to Almaty, many of whom live in shanty towns. This immediately follows a statement about a 1992 event, so it is a little jarring chronologically.
I'm open to suggestions here; I don't think it's too jarring because we move from legal situation to practice Mujinga (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When the authorities attempted to evict the Shanyrak informal settlement in the mid-2000s it resulted in a riot and one person died. Perhaps "a riot that led to the death of a police officer" to create a clearer cause-and-effect relationship of events.
rejigged Mujinga (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Poet Aron Atabek, who was chairman of Shanyrak's Land and Dwelling Committee and was jailed for 18 years. This is a sentence fragment, unless you meant to exclude the word "and" (also explain why he was jailed).
yeah not sure what happened there, thanks for noticing! Mujinga (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
By the 1980s, large numbers of people had a propiska to live in Almaty, but had not been allocated an apartment. Almaty (then Alma-Ata [italics recommended]) is Kazakhstan's largest city and was also at that time the capital. → "By the 1980s, large numbers of people had a propiska to live in Almaty (then Alma-Ata), Kazakhstan's largest city and the capital at the time, but had not been allocated an apartment."
rejigged but not sure about the italics? Mujinga (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This situation were blamed upon corrupt officials "Were" should be "was", and substituting "this" with "the" might read better.
rolled into previoius sentence Mujinga (talk) 15:46, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nazarbayev ordered that the homes were legalized "Ordered the legaliz(s?)ation of the homes".
rejigged Mujinga (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
wanting to protest at how long their claims for land tenure were taking. Is there a reason for the word choice "wanting to protest" as opposed to just "protesting"?

Ambiguity/room for elaboration:

he procedure to buy land and construct a dwelling legally is lengthy, so people often build their home first then attempt to legalize it. Corruption (known as blat) is rife amongst the officials who can distribute title to land. This feels like WP:WEASEL territory.
I'm summarising Alexander page 8 - "The process of obtaining land and house documents is so opaque, lengthy, changeable and expensive that a widespread procedure is to build illegally and then register a house, providing the timing meets a ‘wave’ of post hoc legislation (see below) or the applicant pulls strings (blat) and/or pays. Obtaining documents is time-consuming. It can take years to sort out paperwork, as many Shanyrak residents wearily explained, one laughingly saying that Kazakhstan was in fact Qaghazstan: ‘land of documents’ [...] As is common, he found a friend of a friend in the local Akimat to usher the registration through. Although he did not call this po blaty (via blat), this is how it works. When due process becomes practically impossible, such informal mechanisms to acquire rights, take on a legitimate if not entirely moral hue." - happy to send over the pdf if you need it Mujinga (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't hurt to explain who PEN International are.
sure! Mujinga (talk) 15:56, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of corruption did the new affordable housing program face?
added details from Alexander page 12 Mujinga (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting the article on hold for now. There are some other tiny things I would tweak, but I might just do those myself when I get the chance. Best of luck and don't get discouraged! Anonymous 01:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great comments thanks, will get on to answering them then ping Mujinga (talk) 10:19, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@An anonymous username, not my real name: I think I've now replied on everything, see what you think Mujinga (talk) 16:17, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having carefully reread the article, I would say that it has substantially improved to the point where it definitely meets the GA criteria. Impressive work, and it's quite a pity that this piece went so long without a review to begin with. Anyway, congratulations! Anonymous 22:31, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! Mujinga (talk) 23:44, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]