Talk:Rémy Mwamba/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs) 01:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll take this. Comments will be forthcoming over the next couple of days. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:29, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Wanted to check in and see if you needed more time, or if you could get this done today, since you're working on it. I'm happy to place it on hold for a longer period, it's just indefinite holds that I'm not a fan of. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Sorry for the incremental progress, I've been very busy IRL this past week. I'm going to be busy for the next few hours, but I'm confident I'll have time to finish responding to your comments this evening. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93: Should be all done now. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:44, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   All concerns addressed

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   All concerns addressed

2. 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:

   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:

   No issues

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spotchecked one online English source, no issues. AGF on French and/or offline sources.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   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

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   No issues

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. 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:

   Licensing checks out to the best of my abilities.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   All concerns addressed, passing momentarily. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:55, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Comments

• Can you link "Vunga"?
  • There is no article for the location.
• Why is "Muluba" not the title of the linked article? Also, to me "of Muluba ancestry" reads better, but I leave that to you.
  • This has to do with Bantu languages' grammar. "Luba" is the name of the people/ethnicity. The "Mu" prefix indicates singularity. The "Ba" prefix indicates plurality. Thus, one might say, "I met a Muluba today," and "Did you see all those Baluba this afternoon?"
• Without a link or explanation, "Mutombo Mukulu" doesn't mean much.
  • I've added a footnote with more information. Essentially, he was an early Luba chief and Mwamba used his familial connection to him to enhance his popularity among the Baluba.
• "council of the Kenya commune" can you link or explain what this body is?
  • Footnote added.
• Is "cartel" really the most appropriate word here?
  • It's meant more in the sense of Kartel (electoral alliance). "Cartel" is a proper English word for a political alliance of this fashion, even though the connotation is more negative these days due to drug cartels and the like. Specific to this case, the BALUBAKAT cartel which Mwamba was representing consisted of the BALUBAKAT and some very minor regional parties.
• Do we have a date for his founding of the party? Also, if he founded it; how did it become so big so quickly that he was invited to Brussels?
  • Added the date. As for the party's development between 1957 and 1960, I have yet to find good sourcing tracing its expansions, though by that time it was one of the largest parties in Katanga Province. I'm not really sure what the Belgians' criteria for invitation to the Belgo-Congolese Round Table Conference, but they did invite delegations of parties that ended up playing very minor roles after independence, such as the Alliance des Bayanzi and the Federation Generale du Congo.
• "Before the conference dissolved"...they could hardly accept the offer after the conference dissolved. I'd trim this
  • Done.
• "Ultimately it was decided" by whom? The commission?
  • The commission. Revised.
• "In May he went to Brazzaville at the invitation of Congo-Brazza President Fulbert Youlou to listen to a programme for the transformation of the Congo into a federation." This sentence confuses me for several reasons. Is this May of the same year? In which case, why isn't it before the previous sentences? Also, if the country was to be the Republic of the Congo, why it is linked to Congo-Brazza here? Also, I'm uncertain what "programme for the transformation of the Congo into a federation" means.
  • Revised. It was in May 1960. Both of these Congolese republics becoming independent led to naming confusion at the time. Congo-Brazzaville soon opted to be called the "Congolese Republic" and Congo-Leopoldville chose to go by the "Republic of the Congo" for the early 1960s. Congo-Leopoldville adopted the "Democratic Republic of the Congo" name in 1964 to help clear up confusion, and I'm not sure at what point Congo-Brazza decided to call itself "Republic of the Congo". The function in Brazzaville that Mwamba was attending was a presentation of sorts which proposed that both countries join into a large federation when they became independent. This never materialised.
• In general that second paragraph has too much material in it; I would break it up.
  • Done.
• I would recommend moving the quote box down into the section where he is actually minister.
  • Done.
• "24 June" of what year?
  • 1960, added.
• Link Léopoldville and Thysville
  • Done.
• "Three days later he ordered" the "he" is ambiguous
  • Clarified.
• I'd suggest moving the sentence about his dismissal to the next paragraph, where it would flow better.
  • I left the dismissal there, because I think it's best to have the end of his tenure in that post mentioned for that subsection. I moved the following sentence about his work in the opposition to the next paragraph.
• " October, his supporters" again, "his" is potentially ambiguous
  • Clarified
• Overall, you've done a very decent job with poor source material, but the article remains quite short. Are you sure you've scraped all you can from the sources?
  • I've gathered what I can for Mwamba from the most reliable sources, including one last tidbit of information. Since he was a relatively minor figure in Congolese politcal history, there's not much on him specifically. If you Google him, you might find Western newspaper scare reports labeling him a Marxist (in the context of complaining about Lumumba), an ideological position I have not seen ascribed to him by any solid books or scholarly sources. You may also find news coverage confusing him with Prosper MWamba Ilunga, another BALUBAKAT politician and describing things he supposedly did in Katanga. In short, I did not add this extra "info" because it is inaccurate.
• Refs look reliable; under other circumstances I might object to the CIA source, but given its minimal use I think it's okay; there's a harv error with ref 27. If you're not already aware of it, this script is very useful in finding them.
  • Fixed.
• Might there be a fair-use image available for Mwamba? If not, I wonder if you could add a picture of Lumumba or Mobutu; that should be available, surely.
  • There may be one or two UN photos of him, but they're not very good. I've added a public domain photo of the Lumumba Government. Mwamba is in it somewhere, I'm just not sure exactly which person he is.