Talk:Victoria Falls Conference (1975)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Victoria Falls Conference (1975)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 01:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations:

Linkrot:

Checking against GA criteria

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   Portuguese leadership was hurriedly withdrawn from Lisbon's overseas territories, each of which was earmarked for an immediate handover to Communist guerrillas. Communist or nationalist? Can I see a quote from the source?

   Okay:

   In this year [1974], however, two significant events occurred ... The first and most important was the collapse of the Portuguese government in a military coup on 25 April 1975. Mozambique was hastily handed on a plate to FRELIMO, who took power in mid-1975 ... With the exit of the Portuguese, ZANLA were able to establish themselves freely in Mozambique with the full support of the FRELIMO government headed by Samora Machel. [skip to p. 480] 1969: Samora Machel (FRELIMO) grants Josiah Tongogara (ZANLA) permission to operate against Rhodesia from bases in Tete Province, Mozambique ... 1974: Portugal hands over Mozambique to unelected FRELIMO government.

   — Alexandre Binda, The Saints, p. 166, pp. 480–481

   I've added another reference to Duignan and Gann, Communism in sub-Saharan Africa: a reappraisal; see here —Cliftonian (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

   and a nationalist delegation attending under the banner of Abel Muzorewa's African National Council, which for this conference incorporated delegates from the Zimbabwe African National Union, Zimbabwe African People's Union and Front for the Liberation of Zimbabwe as well as its own members. Needs "the" beforeZAPU and FLZ, and I find "as well as its own members" confusing - who are they? Jezhotwells (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

   I've made it clearer. —Cliftonian (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

   OK, all satisfactory. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

   Prose is good, complies with key elements of MoS

   I think the use of the acronym ANC for the United African National Council is confusing as ANC is the commonly used acronym for the African National Congress pf South Africa. Can you use UANC instead?

   Okay. —Cliftonian (talk) 02:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

   Ok, good. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   On-line sources check out, I assume good faith for off-line, no evidence of OR.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Good coverage, no trivia.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   NPOV

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   no edit warring

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):

   Images licensed and captioned correctly.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   JUst a couple of points to address, on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:21, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

   OK, thanks for sorting those issues. Listing as GA. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.