Talk:Rwandan Revolution/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Whizz40 (talk · contribs) 23:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

1. This article is written in an encyclopaedic style. It is coherent, concise, clear and complies with the MoS. Most of the article is written in British English, except "Colonization" which is used as a sub-section heading and needs correcting for consistency. Two further small corrections are needed: "Begium's" and "centralistion". Question: should the first sentence mention the end of colonial rule as part of the description of the Revolution? In other words, it that central to the definition of the Revolution or is it more a consequence of the Revolution.

• Some ideas on wording to be considered at the discretion of the regular editors; these changes are not required for GA status because it is already well written:

Lead

• Germany and Belgium successively --> Germany and subsequently Belgium
• agitated for speedy independence to cement their power --> agitated for independence from Belgium to cement their power
• sub-chief --> replace with plain English in the Lead (e.g. local elder or local leader) and explain the meaning in the body of the article
• Logiest and Hutu leader --> Logiest, now the special civil resident, and Hutu leader

Colonization section

• Leopold II --> Belgian king Leopold II

2. The article is well referenced with page numbers and links to reliable sources. Following a careful read through of the article and spot checks of sources, there are no indications of any concerns in terms of accuracy, original research or copyright, although not every fact and source could be checked. In addition, I see the Nominator requested a Peer Review for the article.

• Idea: nominating the article for WP:DYK could generate further review if GA status is attained.

3. As required by the criteria, the article is broad in its coverage, addresses the main aspects of the topic; and stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. I see there has been discussion, collaboration and challenge among editors on the talk page and the nominator's talk page which can contribute to a well-written article.

• Idea for working toward A-class: more context, description or quotes about the actual events experienced by the people involved, ordinary and prominent, could help inform the reader.

4. The article is neutral in my view; I think the article demonstrates this well in terms of the structure and content, which is important given the topic. If there are omissions from the article that affect neutrality, I would not be aware of them, but given what is presented is coherent and appears complete, there is nothing to indicate this might be a concern.

5. The article has been written in under 150 edits since 2010 by a lead editor with about three other main editors contributing and about 40 distinct editors in total. There have been about 40 edits this month by three editors, including formal copyediting with discussion on the Talk page; all look constructive and the article looks stable.

6. The article has a useful infobox and is illustrated with five images; four of these are described as own work or public domain and the image of the coins says the permission has been archived.

• Idea for working toward A-class: more images or illustrations of the central events and actors, and perhaps a map to indicate the geography.

Whizz40 (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Responses

• Colonization → Colonisation: Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• centralistion → centralisation: Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• Begium's → Belgium's: Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
• On the question:

  should the first sentence mention the end of colonial rule as part of the description of the Revolution? In other words, it that central to the definition of the Revolution or is it more a consequence of the Revolution.

  I have changed the lede slightly so the first paragraph is two sentences summing up the most important aspects, namely the transition from Tutsi monarchy to Hutu republic, and the transition from colony to independence. Independence would have happened at some point anyway, but I do also think it's central to the definition. Let me know what you think of this change.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

This is much a clearer introduction to the lead in my view, especially for readers new to the topic. With this done, I can go ahead and complete the Review. Whizz40 (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Review summary

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

An interesting and important article. I'll list it under World history: African history. Whizz40 (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

@Whizz40: thanks for doing this review, and I'm glad you found the article interesting! All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)