Wikipedia

Talk:Invasion of South Kasai/GA1

< Talk:Invasion of South Kasai
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Indy beetle in topic GA Review

GA Review

edit
Latest comment: 4 years ago10 comments2 people in discussion
GA toolbox
Reviewing

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

Reviewer: Buidhe (talk · contribs) 00:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose ( ) 1b. MoS ( ) 2a. ref layout ( ) 2b. cites WP:RS ( ) 2c. no WP:OR ( ) 2d. no WP:CV ( )
3a. broadness ( ) 3b. focus ( ) 4. neutral ( ) 5. stable ( ) 6a. free or tagged images ( ) 6b. pics relevant ( )
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked   are unassessed

  Working (t · c) buidhe 00:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm really sorry for the delay. I keep getting distracted. (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Lead

edit
  • The first paragraph is somewhat confusing as it's not in chronological order. I think you could move the first sentence to the end of the paragraph without leaving the reader confused about the article subject, or alternately put a paragraph break in order to clarify that there's a chronological break.
    • Revised with a paragraph break.
  • Genocide issue: Since it states in the article that there is no evidence genocide was actually planned, I think if you're going to mention it in the lead you have to add that there is no evidence for it, per WP:NPOV and avoiding giving a misleading impression.
    • Added No evidence has since been provided to suggest that the ANC massacres in Bakwanga met the legal definitions of genocide.
  • "The territory remained in secession until 1962." Would it be possible to add a very brief explanation what changed in 1962? (t · c) buidhe 22:43, 13 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

Body

edit
  • "polarised between moderate évolués and the more radical mass membership" who are the mass membership? Does this imply that the non-evolue population was more radical?
    • Forgive the somewhat Marxist language "the masses" simply refers to the more ordinary people, who were either working-class or poor ("the masses" and "mass" is the word you'll find in the sources). They did indeed have some more radical tendencies; Léopoldville riots is a good example.
  • "Representatives from 13 independent countries and four nationalist movements attended." Not required for GA, but it looks a bit odd to have a combination of digits and spelled out numbers in the same sentence
    • This is in accordance with a style allowed under MOS, having numeric symbols for a value greater than 10 and words for values less than 10.
  • "regarded the Kasai Baluba as enemies and refused to help him" This is a war, does this mean that Munongo wanted to go to war with South Kasai? Or is it more like "rivals"?
    • Eh, that's kind of a complicated one. Munongo was a nativist who did not want anyone who's ancestry was not rooted in Katanga to live in that province. Thus, he despised the Kasai Baluba, since many Baluba who had roots in Kasai (others had long lineages in Katanga) had immigrated to Katanga in the early/mid 20th century to work in the mining industry. Munongo's position was not uncommon in Katanga among the radical "ultras" as they were called, and thus there was something of two paradoxical conflicts involving Katanga and South Kasai. The first involved their united resolve to fight the Congolese central government and weaken its authority, and in this they were united. The second involved the nativist disputes between the two, which did result in some border clashes. Munongo's stance was by no means the only one in Katangese leadership though; his boss, President Moise Tshombe, appeared far-less concerned about the nativist problem. "Rival" I feel doesn't quite capture the bitterness of Munongo and the ultras' feelings towards the Kasai Baluba, but he didn't necessarily seek a war with South Kasai.
  • UMHK – This acronym only appears once in the article, I'm not sure what is an abbreviation of
  • You link "Chamber of Deputies" to National Assembly (Democratic Republic of the Congo), which states that the National Assembly was formed in 2006. It would be better to (red)link a previous Assembly if it is different from the current one.
    • Link removed.
  • "However, the authenticity and legality of the vote was questionable" Could this be more specific?
    • I just put this here to emphasize that it wasn't necessarily the case that Parliament fully approved of what Lumumba was doing. As for why it was questionable, here's what I wrote on the Lumumba Government article: Firstly, pro-Lumumba soldiers were inside the Palais de la Nation during the session. Secondly, it is likely that the quorum of 112 (69 for the Chamber and 43 for the Senate) was never achieved. According to official records, 70 deputies and 43 senators were in attendance (113 parliamentarians). This contrasts with journalist accounts, which fix the number between 90 and 95 parliamentarians. The vote was initially tallied as 88 to one with three abstentions, which would support the journalists' evaluations. The count was later modified to read 88 to 25 with three abstentions. Lumumba for his part was not troubled by the discrepancy and viewed the vote as a political victory. On 5 September the President of the Chamber had declared that in light of the secessions of Katanga and South Kasai—and the withdrawal of their parliamentarians from the capital—the quorum for the Chamber was lowered to 65. I could possibly add a smaller footnote to this effect.
  • "which shocked the public" which public? (t · c) buidhe 01:55, 30 September 2020 (UTC)Reply
    • Almost certainly the British one; clarified.

@Buidhe: I have responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:02, 7 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Add topic
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Invasion_of_South_Kasai/GA1&oldid=982365554"