Talk:Battle of Lukaya/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Bryanrutherford0 (talk · contribs) 18:25, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this one. A first review will be up in the next couple of days. -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2019 (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):
I've copyedited the article, and it's now up to an acceptable prose standard. It complies with most of the relevant MoS items, but I have concerns about ~~the lead and~~ "words to watch".

MoS says that an article of this length should have a lead section of "two or three paragraphs", so the lead is currently too long. It also includes excessive detail. WikiProject Military History's content guide says that the lead section of an article about a battle should cover the name of the war, the date of the battle, the belligerents, the context that led to the battle, the outcome, and the battle's significance to the war; there's no need for the lead to include a detailed timeline of the battle with unit movements. On the other hand, a more thorough summary of the battle's significance should be added, paraphrasing from the good content on this topic in the "Aftermath" section of the body (e.g. that "after the Battle of Lukaya, the Uganda Army de-facto collapsed and ran").

I also don't like the way the text currently imputes states of mind to the commanders (saying they were "troubled" in three places) that I doubt the (offline) sources support. There should be a more objective way to say whatever we're trying to say in those spots.

@Bryanrutherford0: The references to being "troubled" have been removed from the lead. The word remains in discussing the Ugandan commanders' reactions to the fall of Masaka, but I've removed the modifier, "deeply". This is the actual text from Bernard Rwehururu: "After the fall of Masaka some of our colleagues who had earlier thought that the war was a Suicide Regiment affair belatedly realised that it affected all of us and that the enemy meant real business. The enemy forces' proximity to Kampala, forcefully drove that point home. It was then that the real mobilisation of troops for the defence of Kampala began." Though the reference to Tanzanian commanders has been removed for the sake of summary style in the lead, this is what Avirgan and Honey have to say about their thoughts: "Tanzanian commanders considered Lukaya to have been a disaster". This is quite clear. Avirgan and Honey interviewed Tanzanian soldiers and officials to assist in the writing of their book, and thus could be considered to be well-informed about their states of mind (they accompanied the TPDF as it moved into Uganda). Rwehururu was himself a Ugandan commander, so it's not a stretch to say he would be well informed of his colleagues' thoughts. Whether the text offered by him supports the wording of the Ugandan commanders' states of mind as "troubled", I leave to your discretion. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
I'll have to AGF on the offline sources, but online sources confirm the general outline of the article, along with many details. Earwig's tool shows no signs of plagiarism from online sources.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
The article achieves broad coverage of the key aspects of the topic without getting caught up in excessive detail in any part other than the lead, as noted above.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
The treatment doesn't seem to favor one belligerent over another.
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 fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
The images are relevant and have appropriate licenses.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
The substance of a good article is definitely here; with a little cleanup, it should be able to pass. Looking forward to hearing from the nominator! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 20:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay! With the changes the nominator has made, my concerns have been addressed, and the article now meets the Good Article standard and is hereby promoted. Thank you, Indy beetle, for your responsive editing! -Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]