Talk:Battle of Bondo

Battle of Bondo has been listed as one of the Warfare 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.

Battle of Bondo is part of the Battles of the Uganda–Tanzania War series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 25, 2019	Good article nominee	Listed
February 8, 2020	Good topic candidate	Promoted

Current status: Good article

Africa: Tanzania / Uganda Low‑importance

	Africa portal 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.
	Tanzania portal This article is supported by WikiProject Tanzania (assessed as Low-importance).
	Uganda portal This article is supported by WikiProject Uganda (assessed as Low-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!

Military history: African / Cold War

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Associated task forces:
/
	African military history task force
	Cold War task force (c. 1945 – c. 1989)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 21:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Starting review

Should be able to start tomorrow. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basic GA criteria

Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction. Not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation. Not applicable.
Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
No original research.
No copyright violations or plagiarism.
Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
Neutral.
Stable.
Illustrated, if possible.
Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Summary

A very interesting article that is well written and stays within scope whilst achieving summary style. I altered the introduction because, as with Battle of Bombo, there is no need to begin an article with the title. It makes for awkward construction. I've no problems with this article and am happy to pass it immediately. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article Review

The lead of this article gives great background knowledge of this battle including where it takes place and during what time. As well as who all is involved, and why the battle started in the first place. Covering both countries scenario neutrally as it pertains to the events leading to the battle. It greatly reflects the rest of the article. The structure of this article flows chronologically as any battle should. Giving the events of brewing up that starts the war. Listing what happened during the war, and finally telling us what happened after the war. The information is neutral and is not at all biased. The sourcing is beyond credible as it is mainly derived from written and published material. Two out of four books referenced in the article dates back to the 1980's. Which is pretty close to when this battle ended. The sources seem to be presented accurately and the article seems to be balanced, not leaning all on one source of information. The author's tone is to inform us all on this war, that was lost by friendly fire. I was impressed when I came about learning that a recoil less rifle even existed, being able to shoot ammo that is larger than a standard ruler. Great work! Watsherm (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]