| Toolbox |
|---|
This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because it is an article of great importance to African history. Reviewing Patrice Lumumba's article would give it a chance to be nominated and be a featured article. As a featured article it would attract readers and it will be listed amongst other great and reliable articles. So far the article as it stands looks good however there are two citation needed flags. Also the article is well structured and quick to the point.
Thanks, Juan Carlos Suarez Juanc.suar (talk) 21:46, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Brianboulton comments:
You have nominated this for peer review, though you are not a contributor to the article. The leading contributors have very few recent edits between them and don't appear to have much current intetrest in the article. Who are you thinking is going to take on the work necessary to develop the article towards GA or FA status?
Parts of the article read well, though it will be necessary to check that some of the wording does not represent possible copyright violation. As it stands, the article is probably fairly classed as a C, not more. A great deal of work is necessary to get the work to GA standard, let alone FA. The principal tasks to be undertaken are:-
- Balance of material: the article is over-weighted with material relating to Lumumba's death and the subsequent enquiries while his actual life and work is rather skimped. The "lfe" details need to be made more comprehensive
- Under-referencing: The two citation tags only hint at the problem . There are many uncited statements, including whole sections. Please note that as a general rule every statement of significance needs to be cited, every direct quote needs to cited, and every paragraph should end with a citation.
- Reference formats: We need a proper list of cited works that needs to be after the citations. This should be a list of every cited book, and needs to be separate from other lists of films, videos etc.
- The format of citations needs overhauling. It is all over the place at the moment. Books are cited without page numbers; there are unformatted links; retrieval dates missing; publishers missing, publication dates missing, etc.
- The "Films" and "Other" lists look mainly like trivia. Possibly the first item, about the naming of Lumumba-Zapata College,could be worked into the article, but the rest should be removed. The BBC "On This Day" links are external links that should not appear within the body of the article.
- The "Tributes" should be reduced to a much smaller number, and included in a section dealing with Lumumba's political legacy. What, if any, lasting effect did he have on the country? What are considered his achievments? How have historians assessed his place in history?
- Some of the prose lacks neutrality, for example: "In contrast to the relatively harmless speech of President Kasa-Vubu, Lumumba's reference to the suffering of the Congolese under Belgian colonialism stirred the crowd while simultaneously humiliating and alienating the King and his entourage". If this is a quote it should be indicated as such, and cited, otherwise it reads as POV. Another examples: "Lumumba made the fateful decision...".
- The lead needs to be expanded so that it is a summary of the article.
In summary, the article needs much work if it is to be brought to a standard which this important African figure justifies. I hope that interested editors will come forward to attempt the task. Brianboulton (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)