Talk:United States of Africa/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Arsenikk (talk · contribs) 14:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
- Comments
This article covers a scope which by its very nature will be rather speculative. The article is also rather short, meaning that "if more can be said within an encyclopedic scope, more should be said".
I have several specific concerns regarding the article:
- The lead does not summarize the article. Rather it includes information not included elsewhere in the article, and only includes a limited amount of recent statements. Except for the first sentence, the lead must be entirely rewritten. All the information in the lead is relevant and should be moved to the appropriate place in the body.
- The history section is very short. Although it mentions some milestones, it should be filled with more content and context. First of all it should contain a brief summary of the political state of Africa during the colonial area, as the concept first arose in a political landscape vastly different from the current.
- There have been several steps of multilateral collaboration in Africa, including the mentioned Organisation of African Unity and the African Union. The article should provide context as to if these organizations can be seen as steps towards a federation and if such as been part of the political debate around their creation.
- The Casablanca Group should probably also be mentioned, although its limited geographical scope may call for only a few sentences.
- More realistic approaches of federations, such as the East African Federation, should be discussed in more depth.
- The article mentions pan-Africanism, which perhaps should be discussed in more depth. A relevant question here is also the apparent conflict between pan-Africanism and pan-Arabism, which counties in northern Africa often hail to.
- A relevant question is also if such a union could be established at a smaller scale, i.e. not all African countries being included.
- The demographics section is unreferenced and should include hard facts (actual area, not just stating it would be the largest, etc.)
- There are an awful lot of see also links; external links should not be mixed with see also, and links in the article not included in the see also.
Overall I feel that the article needs to be significantly expanded and partially rewritten to meet the GA criteria. I have left specific leads which should give a good guide to how the article can be developed. I am therefore failing the nomination. Arsenikk (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)