Talk:2010 Zambian census/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: This looks like an interesting topic, let me see if I can transfer some of my experience using the Ethiopian Census returns to this article. Llywrch (talk · contribs) 23:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot for taking up the review. Let me know the improvements points.Ssriram mt (talk) 16:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in commenting. My off-Wiki life has been busy & I'm behind in the on-Wiki matters I've wanted to attend to. Update: my responses are inline. Where I marked "Good", I felt it met my expectations; if you see a way to improve on that point, however, feel free to do so.
 * Llywrch writes:
 * First, I really like this article. As I wrote above, I worked with the Ethiopian Censuses of 1995 & 2007, which I found rich with facts & details but was at a loss of how to transfer that information to Wikipedia. Your article provides a model for doing just that. And I hope that the fact this article is very far along the way to being a GA is sufficient to carry you thru my following criticism.
 * Thanks again - I was looking around for GA/FA in demographic related pages, but could not find any. I think the exercise would help improve lot of other/similar pages.


 * Every time you mention an organization or term, you add the abbreviation, even if that title or phrase never appears again. Worse, if it does appear in a subsequent section, you set out the entire title & follow it with the abbreviation. A bit of copy-editing, but it would help matters.
 * You may want to take another pass thru the article. I found several examples of acronyms added to titles that were never used again & removed those.
 * I just made this edit. Many of the acronyms in the "Background" section are defined (with links) in the lead section immediately before it; redefining them here is not only redundant, but annoying, which is why I stripped out the full titles & links before.
 * I just made this edit. Many of the acronyms in the "Background" section are defined (with links) in the lead section immediately before it; redefining them here is not only redundant, but annoying, which is why I stripped out the full titles & links before.
 * I just made this edit. Many of the acronyms in the "Background" section are defined (with links) in the lead section immediately before it; redefining them here is not only redundant, but annoying, which is why I stripped out the full titles & links before.


 * In the section "Background", you use two acronyms that are never defined. In the first paragraph is "LBP"; in the second is "MOU". I have no idea what they are, & neither will most readers.
 * Good
 * Good


 * Then the matter of links. You mention a number of government agencies in Zambia -- all of these should have articles, & thus should be linked the first time they appear. Further, in the text a number of subnational units are mentioned; these, too need to be linked the first time they appear. I also believe that each time they appear in a table, they should be linked.
 * You may want to take another pass. I found several places in the text where the local subdivision wasn't linked even once.
 * This is not exactly what I suggested above, but I noticed under the "Language & Ethnicity" section that religious affiliation was set out, & the various religions & sects were linked to the general article & not the one relating to Zambia, e.g. Islam & not Islam in Zambia. IMHO, it would be useful to link to Zambia-related articles when possible.
 * This is not exactly what I suggested above, but I noticed under the "Language & Ethnicity" section that religious affiliation was set out, & the various religions & sects were linked to the general article & not the one relating to Zambia, e.g. Islam & not Islam in Zambia. IMHO, it would be useful to link to Zambia-related articles when possible.


 * Lead section. There are a number of facts (e.g., interdecal growth, sex ratio, number of schools) stated without sources. Now if these facts were discussed in their own sections in the article, that would not be a problem; since they aren't they need citations.:✅ Another issue with the lead section is that its structure is very similar -- but not enough -- to 2000 Zambian census. The 2000 census includes a number of quality of life statistics that are not included in the 2010, such as safe water, toilets, employment. IMHO, if the same figures were laid out in the same order in both sections, that would help users to compare the data sampled at the two different times.
 * Good, but I notice the article on the 2000 census had figures on prevalence of HIV, access to safe water & proper toilets (FWIW, this is a major issue in Ethiopia, so this is worth including), infant mortality rates, & average life span. Does the 2010 census include these figures? (If so, maybe compare those against equivalent stats for Africa & the world?)
 * I have got IMR, but 2010 census does not have figures of HIV, safe water and toilets. The last health survey in 2007 accounted AIDS, but other numbers are merely estimates. I have compiled the information in HIV/AIDS in Zambia.
 * OK.
 * OK.


 * Another item is providing how Zambia defined some of the criteria of their censuses. For example, what is meant by "fully employed" varies from country to country. Some define it as 40 hours of work a week; some as more than 20 hours a week; I know Ethiopia actually has a category of "fully employed but not paid" -- which applies to grown children working in a family business, IIRC.
 * ✅ - included foot notes and detailed explanation
 * Good. Although in the lead you use the term "active people". It'll help if you add a footnote there too. (Just use "b", since you defined it. IMHO, it doesn't hurt to reuse explanatory information like this more than once if the passages are too far apart.)
 * I see you have already included in the economy section.


 * One fact I remember from the Ethiopian census was that the list of languages & ethnic groups in the 1995 census was not the exact same one in the 2007 census -- which makes a challenge in comparing the growth of different ethnic groups (or, more likely, penetration of census takers into the countryside). Was there a similar discrepancy between the 2010 Zambian censuses & earlier ones? (At this point, comparing the 2010 & 2000 censuses would be sufficient.)
 * There are distinct variation in ethnicity - the second position was Eastern Province people in 2000, while it is Tonga in 2000. Language did not have much of variance.
 * That's okay. If it doesn't exist, it doesn't exist.


 * You briefly list all of the censuses Zambia carried out; were there any pre-Independence censuses performed by the colonial authorities?
 * So were there? If you couldn't find any, that's okay.
 * So were there? If you couldn't find any, that's okay.


 * Lastly, are there any notable quirks in this census report? I remember the 1995 Ethiopian census actually had a table for all people employed as prostitutes, providing information on their location (by Federal State) & education (IIRC, at least one prostitute in Ethiopia had a college education!) If not, that's okay; but it is always interesting to see what each government believes is worth recording.
 * ✅ - Albinism is one thing I found distinct in Zambian census
 * Good.

As I wrote, this article is almost there, & most of these criticisms only became apparent on a second or third reading. Addressing them will make this a clear GA. -- llywrch (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please have a relook.Ssriram mt (talk) 17:53, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Llywrch - Hi, pinging you just in case you missed this - the changes are complete, please review at your convenience, thanks.Ssriram mt (talk) 04:18, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, I saw that you completed your changes earlier today. Just been busy off-Wiki to check your changes. Promise to get to it in the next couple days. -- llywrch (talk) 06:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Update I had a look, made a few changes, & offered some feedback. I think we're getting there, & hopefully it will only take one more pass. -- llywrch (talk) 21:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Llywrch - please have a look, the review comments are addressed - thanks a lot.Ssriram mt (talk) 10:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, at this point there are still some points of style that could stand work. If you are considering promoting this to FA status, you should have someone in the Copyedit Guild work on this; I don't review articles for conformance to WP:MOS as long as the style is consistent & conforms to some recognized standard; I'm more concerned with content & that the article presents it well. But I think I've tormented you enough about this article, so I'm promoting it. -- llywrch (talk) 07:23, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot - i will look to streamline similar articles before a FA nom. Thanks again.Ssriram mt (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)