Talk:National Union of Freedom Fighters/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 03:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
I'll review this. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
Checklist
[edit]GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- remaining issues addressed
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
- No issues here
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- No issues
- B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:
- Sources seem solid
- C. It contains no original research:
- AGF on offline sources.
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- Earwig's tool is clear; spotchecks are clear
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Article substantially expanded
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- No extraneous material
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- No issues.
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Image licenses check out to the best of my ability
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- All issues addressed, passing shortly.
- Pass or Fail:
Comments
[edit]- "Black Power" ought to be linked in the first body paragraph
Done - Do we know if Davis was killed, or injured, or what? If it's known, it would be worth mentioning; "shot" raises more questions than it answers. Done
- "decided to continue the struggle" is a bit...povish. Could you rephrase, and perhaps provide more detail as to what they decided to fight for? Done
- I'd retitle the first section "background and formation", as it's a little more than just background. Done
- The last couple of sentences of the first section are a little confusing; it isn't clear if Jeffers alone, all of WOLF, or some subset of WOLF, decided to fight on. I suspect it was the third case, but you need to make it clearer.
- Meeks seems a bit fuzzy in his description of that himself. I think part of the problem is that no one was able to get Jeffer's account, so the closest is Kernahan's account. Which make me realise that while Meeks talks about Jeffers having died for the cause, he never says how or when.
- The article is a bit fuzzy on whether the shootings of Guerra and Bloom are considered to be by the NUFF or not; otherwise, that paragraph likely belongs in background.
- The transition appears to be a bit fuzzy. You're right, it's a better fit in the background section.
- There's some unnecessary use of passive voice; I'd recommend saying "guerrillas attacked X" rather than "X was attacked by guerillas".
- I think I got all these.
- "Eric Williams" should probably be "Eric Williams, Prime Minister between YYYY and YYYY" for context Done
- "David Millette (cited by Samaroo) " who are these people? Done
- In the lead; "after the failed uprising" is unclear; which uprising?
- Clarified
- I would add a half-sentence about the group's ideology to the first paragraph, and combine the last lead sentence with the first paragraph. Done
- In general, the article is rather brief. Are you sure you have dredged every last bit of information about the group that is available in the sources?
- No, I haven't. Since this is only a GA, my goal was broad coverage, not comprehensive coverage. While I'd like to get this to FA standard eventually, that isn't a realistic goal at this point with libraries shut down. I have expanded the article a bit, from under 1300 to over 1800 words.
- @Vanamonde93: I think I've resolved most of these. Thanks for your input. Guettarda (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Guettarda: Apologies, I should have mentioned this sooner, but; is "local capitalist class" the phrase that's used by the source, or by the NUFF? If it's the former, it's fine; if it's the latter, a rephrasing might be in order. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: That was an attempt at a paraphrase. Johnson quotes NUFF calling them "big local capitalists". Samaroo uses the phrasing "the colonial (European) and neocolonial (North American) capitalist classes and the local comprador bourgeoisie". I like the phrase "local comprador bourgeoisie", but it's obviously non-neutral. Maybe "local elites"? Guettarda (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- (There is an implied racial angle there was well. The weakness of trying to write history one article at a time like this is that there's a lot of background that cant be explained within the article without unbalancing it, but it's also not documented elsewhere. Guettarda (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC))
- @Guettarda: I understand; I think "local capitalist class" sounds too ideological; but there's clearly a specific idea being expressed here, in that it's those members of the local community who controlled industry; perhaps "local economic elite", or some other way of expressing that? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: Perfect! Thank you for the suggestion, and Done Guettarda (talk) 17:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Vanamonde93: Perfect! Thank you for the suggestion, and
- @Guettarda: I understand; I think "local capitalist class" sounds too ideological; but there's clearly a specific idea being expressed here, in that it's those members of the local community who controlled industry; perhaps "local economic elite", or some other way of expressing that? Vanamonde (Talk) 16:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- (There is an implied racial angle there was well. The weakness of trying to write history one article at a time like this is that there's a lot of background that cant be explained within the article without unbalancing it, but it's also not documented elsewhere. Guettarda (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC))
- @Vanamonde93: That was an attempt at a paraphrase. Johnson quotes NUFF calling them "big local capitalists". Samaroo uses the phrasing "the colonial (European) and neocolonial (North American) capitalist classes and the local comprador bourgeoisie". I like the phrase "local comprador bourgeoisie", but it's obviously non-neutral. Maybe "local elites"? Guettarda (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- @Guettarda: Apologies, I should have mentioned this sooner, but; is "local capitalist class" the phrase that's used by the source, or by the NUFF? If it's the former, it's fine; if it's the latter, a rephrasing might be in order. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)