Talk:Battle of Bombo

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Bombo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: No Great Shaker (talk · contribs) 21:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Starting review

Should be able to start tomorrow. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Basic GA criteria

1. Well written: the prose is clear and concise.
2. Well written: the spelling and grammar are correct.
3. Complies with the MOS guidelines for lead sections.
4. Complies with the MOS guidelines for article structure and layout.
5. Complies with the MOS guidelines for words to watch (e.g., "awesome" and "stunning").
6. Complies with the MOS guidelines for writing about fiction. Not applicable.
7. Complies with the MOS guidelines for list incorporation. Not applicable.
8. Complies with the MOS guidelines for use of quotations.
9. All statements are verifiable with inline citations provided.
10. All inline citations are from reliable sources, etc.
11. Contains a list of all references in accordance with the layout style guideline.
12. No original research.
13. No copyright violations or plagiarism.
14. Broad in its coverage but within scope and in summary style.
15. Neutral.
16. Stable.
17. Illustrated, if possible.
18. Images are at least fair use and do not breach copyright.

Summary

I'm placing the review on hold as there are a couple of things needing attention. In the background section, the first sentence of the second paragraph needs revision because it doesn't flow, mainly because of the word "manifested" and also the contradiction of sentence subject between economy and military. I think it should be expanded and the meaning made clear. In addition, it needs a citation, as does the second sentence because there isn't necessarily a connection between the second and third sentences.

I made a few small changes, mainly to the introduction. There is no need for any article to begin with its title as that can lead to awkward construction. I think Imran Kombe meets the notability criteria and should have an article so I redlinked him.

Overall, it's an interesting read and I like the summary style aspect with everything in scope. If you can attend to the points raised above, I see no reason why this should not then pass GA. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@No Great Shaker: I've revised the problematic area as follows to try and better establish the relationship between events and address your other concerns: Uganda's economy languished under Amin's corrupt rule while the armed forces grew increasingly unstable. Some Uganda Army soldiers mutinied in late October 1978. They were defeated and retreated south over the Tanzanian border, closely pursued by loyalist Ugandan forces. The pursuit transformed into an invasion, and on 1 November Amin announced that he was annexing the Kagera Salient in northern Tanzania. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Excellent. I'm happy to pass the article as GA now. Very good work. Well done. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:57, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Lowman

@Applodion: I strongly suspect Lowman is simply wrong about Nasur and Fadhul being arrested in Bombo. He sourced that claim to a statement made by regime spy Francis Itabuka apparently to the Uganda Human Rights Commission. Andrew Rice, Godwin Matatu, a Canadian newspaper, the Africa Research Bulletin, and New Vision all report that Nasur fled to Kenya. Singh, Matatu, and the UNLF (dubious as they could be) all report that Fadhul also fled to Kenya. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Ah, I had not yet come across the information about Fadhul's escape to Kenya. Oh well, you are probably right. I assume Lowman confused Nasur and Fadhul with different officers of similar names. Nevertheless, we should keep Lowman's statement on Nasur and Fadhul's pages in the current form, contrasted with other statements - just to be safe. Applodion (talk) 21:17, 24 October 2020 (UTC)