Talk:Belgian Congo in World War II/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 10:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this shortly. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article looks in pretty good shape to me from first glance. I'll put comments below as I go through.

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
Was generally good. I went through and corrected a few issues with punctuation and the like, and did some copyedits. Looks good to me now.

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
~~Just a few issues here. I have put "citation needed" tags some places where we need to put references.~~

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
Some bits could be perceived as anti-colonial, but I went through and fixed these
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
No issues
Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
I feel this is close to GA status. Just a couple places we need references. Well done so far! —Cliftonian (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A point—are we using British or American English in this article? Let me know so I can make sure all the spellings etc are consistent. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly mind with this one. Other Belgian ones I've written in the past have been Brit Eng. Brigade Piron (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks so much for your help here! Just a couple of things I've decided to alter back, if it's OK -

I've returned the quotes to individual sections. This is OK in the Manual of Style, and is consistent with the other main Belgian-WWII articles.
Citation language indication reverted to more common type. I've always seen the (in French)-type tages, though I may be wrong.
Ethnic/races - Ethnic group (defined by culture rather than anything else) are many in the Congo, even today - the colonial authorities only forbade black/white fraternization.
I've removed the unsourced text about a Belgian squadron formed in Nigeria added by another user. It's Belgian-African-WWII related, but I don't believe that it deserves a place in a discussion of the Belgian Congo.

I've fixed the ref needed tag by the way. All the best! Brigade Piron (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think this meets GA now and am therefore passing. Here are a couple minor points you may wish to look at if you want to develop the article further:
"The Belgian colonial military numbered 18,000 soldiers, making it one of the largest standing colonial armies in Africa at the time". I would guess that this was mostly black askaris, with a few hundred whites there as officers. Is this correct? Perhaps we should make this clear

"Exports to the United States also rose from $600,000 in early 1940 to $2,700,000 by 1942" $600,000 per annum? $600,000 per month? This would be better if made clear

Well done Brigade Piron! I hereby promote the article to GA. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]