Talk:Battle of Gayaza Hills/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 05:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

I will review this one shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 05:06, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Initial review comments: G'day, Indy, thanks for your ongoing efforts with this topic. I have the following comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
 * there are no dab or dup links, and the ext links all work (no action required)
 * the Earwig tool reports no likely copyright violations: (no action required)
 * the article is short, but from what I could tell based on a Google search it seems to reflect the limited coverage in reliable sources. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to check ProQuest or other similar sorts of library databases, though, as I don't currently have access to those (no action required)
 * My university database (which includes some ProQuest access) did not turn up any additional information.
 * Thank you for checking. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * it would be great if there were figures for Ugandan casualties, but these do not seem available in RS (no action required)
 * I've been unable to find any estimates.
 * No worries, thanks for confirming. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I see some inconsistency in terms of English variation, for instance "kilometre" and "mobilised" (British) but also "maneuver" (US)
 * Should be Anglicanised.
 * ambushed a battalion: suggest linking battalion here
 * Done.
 * suggest adding the archiveurl for citation # 2 for consistency with the other
 * Done.
 * suggest translating the title of the Mzirai work
 * I've tried this before, but the translation of the word Kuzama is ambiguous and thus makes this difficult.
 * Ok, no worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * regarding notes A and B, I wonder if it doesn't make sense just to contrast these in the body of the article, given that the article is quite short. Thoughts?
 * I've incorporated the first note into the text, since there's no obvious difference to me on the authority of Mzirai vs the Daily Monitor. I'd rather keep the second one as a note though, since that casualty listing comes from Avirgan & Honey, and their work on the war is generally highly regarded and considered authoratative, while there is no comment on Mzirai's book (it seems to have been forgotten by historians, likely because it was not written in English). Cooper & Font also say 24 Tanzanians were killed, probably because they got that info from Avirgan & Honey.
 * Fair enough. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * three angles of attack --> "three positions"? Angle of attack is usually more of an aviation term, I believe
 * Done.
 * the battalion held its position while: "the remainder of the battalion held its position, exchanging fire while..."
 * Done.
 * two other Tanzanian battalions: do we know the designations of these battalions?
 * Cooper & Font do not specify.
 * No worries. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The ambush remained one of the few military operations well-carried-out: sounds a little awkward. Would something like this work: "The ambush was one of the few military operations skillfully carried out by..."
 * Done.
 * The TPDF withdrew from the country in 1981 --> "After a brief occupation, the TPDF withdrew from the country in 1981"?
 * "File:Gayaza and Lake Nakivale.png": suggestion for further development (in slow time -- not required for this review) - add the location of the Gayaza Hills?
 * The exact location of the hills is not clear from the existing sources, just that they were south of Mbarara and near Gayaza.
 * images seem appropriately licenced (no action required)
 * I assume that there aren't any relevant photos of the battle, but can you please confirm?
 * I've found none. The "western axis" of fighting in Uganda during this war was given much less attention than the "eastern axis" by the media, the TPDF, and what little historiography on the war there is, so it's quite possible that none even exist.
 * I have addressed your above comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:18, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
 * No worries, looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: ✅
 * a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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;
 * c. it contains no original research; and
 * d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: ✅


 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ✅

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute ✅

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: ✅


 * a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.