Jump to content

Talk:1981 Entumbane uprising/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Anotherclown (talk · contribs) 00:33, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Progression

[edit]
  • Version of the article when originally reviewed: [1]
  • Version of the article when review was closed: [2]

Technical review

[edit]
  • Citations: The Citation Check tool reveals no errors with reference consolidation (no action req'd).
  • Disambiguations: no dab links [3] (no action req'd)
  • Linkrot: external links check out [4] (no action req'd).
  • Alt text: Most of the images lack alt text so you might consider adding it [5] (not a GA req'ment - suggestion only).
  • Copyright violations: The Earwig Tool reveals no issues with copyright violations or close paraphrasing [6] (no action req'd).
  • Duplicate links: no duplicate links (no action req'd).

Criteria

[edit]
  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
    • In the lead this sentence is very long, perhaps consider splitting and rewording a little: "The Rhodesian African Rifles (RAR) and other white-commanded elements of the former Rhodesian Army, fighting for the Zimbabwean government as part of the new Zimbabwe National Army, put down a rebellion by Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA) guerrillas, mainly in the Bulawayo suburb of Entumbane, that threatened to develop into a fresh civil war, barely a year after the end of the Rhodesian Bush War."
    • A little repetitive: "ZIPRA ceased their attacks and ZIPRA's armoured battle group at Essexvale surrendered to the National Army...", specifically "ZIPRA" twice. Consider instead: "ZIPRA ceased their attacks and their armoured battle group at Essexvale surrendered to the National Army."
    • Minor nitpick here: "Every one of the approximately 34,000 guerrillas was promised a place in the new army." Consider instead "All of the approximately 34,000 guerrillas was promised a place in the new army." (suggestion only)
    • "As the military integration process dragged on...", consider instead: "As the process of military integration dragged on..." (suggestion only)
    • Wording seems a bit off here: "another ZIPRA base at Essexvale, to the south-east, became an armoured battle group including 10 T-34s...", consider instead: "another ZIPRA base at Essexvale, to the south-east, formed an armoured battle group including 10 T-34s..."
    • "Tensions escalated even higher..." → "Tensions escalated further..."
    • terminology here: "The Zimbabwe National Army's only regular infantry formation...", suggest changing "formation" to "unit". A formation is generally a brigade or higher, while a battalion is a unit size force element.
    • "at the suggestion of Lieutenant F W "Chomps" Fleetwood", believe the MOS requires full stops when using initials, i.e. "F.W.", see WP:INITS.
      • At a recent FAC of mine a reviewer (I believe it was Tim riley) commented that the British-style usage is to omit the full stops. I believe that MOS only requires you to be consistent within an article regarding usage. —Cliftonian (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ack if it came up at FAC I'm happy to leave it (as you say you have adopted a consistent style). I sometimes wonder if FAC is always right though as the MOS seemed clear to me. Happy to accept that my reading of it may be off. Anotherclown (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is this construction correct: "A Company, RAR"? Normal Brit-Comm presentation in my experience is that it would include the battalion as well, for instance "A Company, 1 RAR". That said I'm not at all familiar with the common presentation of this unit in the literature associated with the Rhodesian African Rifles so more than happy to accept it if that is what is commonly used.
    • Some inconsistency in the presentation of units, for instance "13 Infantry Battalion" vs "11th Infantry Battalion" and "1 Brigade" vs "Fifth Brigade". Probably best to be consistent.
    • "Captains Mpofu and Dlamini." Are their first names available in the sources? If so they should be used per WP:SURNAME, if they are not available then its no issue.
    • Redundant language here: "Both APCs were directly hit and most of the men inside were killed...", consider instead: "Both APCs were directly hit and most of the men inside killed" (don't think the second "were" is req'd).
    • "Major Michael P Stewart of the United States Army...", needs a fullstop for the initial per WP:INITS
    • Incorrect tense here I think: "...now he was satisfied that the loyalty of white army..." probably best to avoid use of "now", given that you are writing 22 years after the fact.
    • Language here seems a little disjointed: " In what became known as Gukurahundi, it perpetrated a number of brutal massacres and atrocities, far exceeding anything that had occurred during the Bush War,[41] against civilians in Matabeleland accused of supporting "dissidents"." Perhaps consider instead: "In what became known as Gukurahundi, it perpetrated a number of brutal massacres and atrocities against civilians in Matabeleland accused of supporting "dissidents", far exceeding anything that had occurred during the Bush War." (suggestion only)
    • "Estimates for the death count..." consider perhaps: "Estimates of the number of deaths..."
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
    • All major points cited using WP:RS.
    • No issues with OR.
    • Minor formatting issue here:
      • "Duignan, Peter; Gann, Lewis H (1994). Communism in sub-Saharan Africa: a reappraisal. Stanford, California: Hoover Press. ISBN 978-0-8179-3712-6." needs to use title case
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    • Most major points seem to be covered without going into undue detail.
    • Level of coverage seems appropriate to me.
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
    • Although there is the potential for some controversy in these topics there were no obvious issues here that I could see.
    • A quick search of Google books [7] indicates that the bulk of the sources available in this area appear to have been consulted.
    • Information seems to presented in good faith per the sources, with the appropriate weight.
    • Assessments are appropriately attributed to RS.
  • It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
    • No issues here.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images): c (non-free images have fair use rationales): d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain:
  • The caption for File:Zimbabwe in Africa.svg ("Zimbabwe, highlighted in red on a map of Africa") reads more like alt text than a caption. Suggest using it as the alt text and making the caption something generic like: "Zimbabwe location map" etc) [suggestion only]
  • I was a little uncertain as to the licencing of this image:
    • File:Joshua Nkomo cropped 1975.png
      • Specifically I was unsure why they were licenced in they way they have been. Have they been released by their author or the source? And if so can a link be provided to prove that? I ask because it doesn't look like they were uploaded by the author themselves. I accept I'm not an image expert so the answer might well be very obvious and I just missed it.
        • According to the image page of the image I cropped this from two years ago, "Photo taken from article: "Joshua Nkomo: Rhodesia’s Leading Black" with the following permissions: Robin Wright is an Alicia Patterson Foundation award winner on leave from The Christian Science Monitor. This article may be published with credit to Robin Wright, The Christian Science Monitor, and the Alicia Patterson Foundation". I don't see a link to prove this. I'm also not an expert on this kind of thing but if it is a problem maybe we can just take the picture out (it's not the best anyway). —Cliftonian (talk) 12:27, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not an image expert so I can't really give you definitive advice here I'm afraid. Happy to accept it on good faith given the statement of permission on the original non-cropped version, I guess just keep it in the back of your mind that it might come up at a higher review. Anotherclown (talk) 20:15, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other images look fine to me.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:1981_Entumbane_uprising/GA1&oldid=1139295926"