Talk:Sierra Leone Colony and Protectorate/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Amitchell125 (talk · contribs) 02:28, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Happy to review the article.

Summary

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS): The Later history section appears to be simply a list of historical facts. The information would be much better present as prose. The prose in the other sections is clearly witeen and understandable, and conforms to the GA standard. The lead section is not an adequate summary of the main text of the article. Information about the motto is not included in the main text, and it should be. There are no issues with the layout or words to watch.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Ref 1 (Wor) is highlighted by Wikipedia as an unreiliable source, and Ref 2 (HistoryWorld) is an unreferenced website. Ref 13 (Sivapragasam) is an unpublished thesis. What makes you think they are reliable sources, as required for GA? No issues have been found regarding plagiarism or original research.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused): I would trim the Origins section by a quarter to removes any excessive details (for example, "he retaliated, attacking the settlement, which was reduced to a mere 64 settlers comprising 39 black men, 19 black women, and six white women"). The article's main problem is that it does not address nearly all of the main aspects of the topic. Similar articles (none of which are at GA level) cover some of—not all—the following areas: a background section to explain the history of the territory prior to it becoming part of the Empire; how the territory became British; a detailed general history of the territory, including any internal dissent, and participation in world affairs; its style of government; a list of governors; its economy, education and legal system; missionary activities; the different districts (listed), perhaps with a detailed map; the demographics of the colony/protectorate; the postal history; the movement towards independence; the legacy of British rule.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: No problem here.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

I am going to be failing the GAN because of the issues identified in the above summary. They are significant and span multiple criteria, and will take awhile to fix.

Some sources I would recommend to help improve the article include:

1. The Story of Sierra Leone (here);
2. Historical dictionary of Sierra Leone (here);
3. Articles in The Journal of African History (subscription only though)
4. The History of Sierra Leone (here);
5. Sierra Leone (here);
6. Articles from JSTOR (for example see here).

Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 20:14, 31 July 2021 (UTC)