Talk:Chilembwe uprising/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 12:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Looks pretty good overall. Will note comments as I read through. Copy-edited a bit myself.

Thank you very much! I've made some changes, some against your edits - please let me know if you feel strongly about any of them. I've tried to avoid the use of "According to Historian X" in the main text, per the comments of another user, by the way.Brigade Piron (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
"with over 900 pupils"—in total or in each school?
We still don't seem to have dealt with this? —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed now. Brigade Piron (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"On 24 January, he sent a letter to the German governor" On 24 January 1915, we mean? But the rebellion was already underway, right? Why not put this later? Y - I have moved this down a section.

Why not mention earlier that the white managers burned Chilembwe's church down in November 1913? I think this deserves to be mentioned earlier and more prominently. Y

Isn't Ranald a man's name? I'd check whether or not this really was a woman. - The book is, unfortunately, back at the library, so it may be a month or so before I can see it again. I've changed it to "dinner guests" which I hope is OK in the meantime?
That does fine. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Jonathon" shouldn't this be Jonathan? Y - I think, in this context, that either is OK, but I've changed it to the more common "-an" ending anyway.

"The disaffected Mlanje or Zomba tribes" Who? We haven't mentioned these people before. Y - I have removed the "disaffected" which I agree makes them sound more important to this than they were; but I don't think they are important enough here to merit too much attention.

We say that Chinyama didn't actually join the rebellion, but then say that he was later seen as part of it. What actually happened with him? ? - I've actually no idea. Once his non-involvement has been noted, the sources don't seem to say. I guess he didn't do anything, but said he would have.
For GA I don't think this is that pertinent, so I'll get it go, but for FAC I would try to make this clearer. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"After independence, Chilembwe's death was commemorated by an annual holiday"—immediately after independence in 1964, or later? is it a holiday now? ? - will try to check. The source doesn't mention.
Yes it does. From 1995. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Chilembwe's portrait was also added to the national currency, and has also featured on Malawian stamps" Again, when? More recently I believe, as the original stuff tended to have the President-for-Life Hastings Banda on it, unless I am very much mistaken. N - I'm afraid the source doesn't say. Are you sure that this is important though, in an article of this scope? I agree that on the Malawian kwacha article this would be important, but I'm not sure its so key here?
I feel it would be important to mention if Banda, who was president for three decades, put Chilembwe above himself in the nationalist narrative by putting him on the money. As it happens Banda put himself on the money instead. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Chilembwe was symbol, legitimizing myth, instrument and propaganda"—would you mind checking the source for this again? This quote doesn't seem grammatically correct to me.Y - this is what it says, it does sound a bit odd at first, but it does make grammatical sense.
Have dealt with this. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Chilembwe's speech of 28 January" don't we mean 23 January? Y - well spotted!

Is there any reason we capitalise "Thangata" the first time we use it, but not thereafter? —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
"It is notable, however,"—avoid this kind of thing, borders on peacocking.Y
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. Has an appropriate reference section:

B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
No inline citation for usage of forced labour. ? - Can you be more specific?
"Increasingly, the plantations were also forced to rely on a system of forced labour or corvée, known locally at the thangata." (end of second paragraph of the background section) has no inline citation —Cliftonian (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Y - done![reply]

No citation for influence by John Brown and Booker T. Washington.Y

First paragraph under "Preparations" has no inline citation. Y

No inline citation at end of first paragraph of "Attack on the Livingstone Bruce Plantation".Y

C. No original research:
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects:
We mention Livingstone got decapitated in his bedroom, but what happened to his wife? They just let her go? N - I think that's covered in the next phrase. I can make it clearer though?
I would prefer to make this clearer with just a couple words, as it's important to immediately make clear that they were specifically going for Livingstone and not just killing everybody (as many, judging from the context, would assume). I have had a go at this myself, I hope this is okay with you. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I've also added a bit to specify this in the important of Magomero as a target. Brigade Piron (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

B. Focused:
Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias:
The article seems slightly skewed in favour of the "liberation history" narrative. ? Can you identify some instances of this more specifically? I've consciously tried to avoid it, but it is possible some has got through... The "analysis" section was included as an attempt to remove any analysis from the main article at all.
Eh, on reflection I actually think it's all right. —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc:
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:
Maybe use this image of a modern banknote with Chilembwe on it? In the lead image, do we know who the white guy with Chilembwe is? ? - I'd prefer to use that article in the "In later culture" section, but I certainly agree it is worth including. I do worry about the copyright data on that file, though. May I re-enstate the other Shire Highland picture?
If you really want to by all means, but I don't think it adds much. (It's Shire Highlands, not Shire Highland.) —Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about the bank note, you're right, bank notes are copyrighted in Malawi. —Cliftonian (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Overall:
Pass or Fail:
Passing now, very well done. A really fine article. —Cliftonian (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Brigade Piron (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]