Talk:Battle of Ngomano/GA1

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

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status. AustralianRupert (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Progression

 * Version of the article when originally reviewed:
 * Version of the article when review was closed:

Technical review

 * Disambiguations: three dab links found which need to be fixed: ✅
 * Linkrot: external links all work:
 * Alt text: n/a

Criteria

 * It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose): b (MoS):
 * it appears that Ngomano might have an alternative spelling of "Negomano" (Paice's book uses this spelling), so it might be an idea to put this in a note somewhere;
 * OCLC numbers could be added for the sources without ISBNs (these can be located by searching by title at );
 * I have added these in. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * are the red links for the authors all necessary? Are the authors likely to satisfy the WP:BIO requirements to have an article created about them? Is so then that is fine, they should stay, but if it is unlikely, then I suggest removing them as they are rather glaring;
 * Fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 06:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the titles in the References need to be consistent with WP:MOSCAPS, for instance "A history of Mozambique" should be "A History of Mozambique";
 * have you got location details for the Downes and Newitt sources, if so could these be added in please?
 * sometimes you have "von Lettow-Vorbeck" but then also "van Lettow-Vorbeck" (the issue being the "van" as opposed to "von");
 * I fixed this, my dutch ancestors must have been addling my brain while i wrote this lol.XavierGreen (talk) 05:34, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the term "Askaris" probably needs to be linked or explained;
 * It is now linked in the lead as well as the background.XavierGreen (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * in this clause: "had defeated a large British army at the Battle of Mahiwa" I suggest changing the word "army" to "force";
 * fixed this, though i changed vorbeck's force to vorbeck's colomn to avoid using force twice in the same sentence.XavierGreen (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks good. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that this clause "With only antiquated weapons and no way of resupplying the Germans" needs a comma after resupplying;
 * fixed.XavierGreen (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * this clause "was no match for the van Lettow-Vorbecks force" needs an attributive apostrophe (i.e. "Vorbeck's);
 * I fixed this issue.XavierGreen (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that in this clause "While the artillery attack the camp", attack should be "attacked";
 * Tis done.XavierGreen (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that on first mention you should use Pinto's rank of major (i.e. in the Background section), and then should just subsequently refer to him as "Pinto" (in the Battle section you use the term "Major Pinto" which seems a little too formal;
 * issue resolved.XavierGreen (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * the citations to the same sources might be consolidated per WP:NAMEDREFS (although this is just a suggestion);


 * It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (references): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):
 * the majority of your sources are from just after the war, would it be possible to have some more citations to more modern sources like Strachan;
 * Unfortunately most modern sources that i have seen mention little about the battle other than the background information about it and the fact that it took place. Even Strachan provides no details about it, and most of the other battles Vorbeck fought in Portuguese East Africa have even less detail about them in even the older works.XavierGreen (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, no worries then. I think this is sorted by adding Paice as per below anyway. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have Edward Paice's Tip & Run (2007) which discusses the battle, but only briefly, and makes mention of the fact that there are some facts in dispute (e.g. he states that the garrison commander was Major Quaresma (although Pinto was more experienced but less senior and who probably led them in the fighting) and that it was Quaresma that surrendered the garrison; also he states that British intelligence estimates later stated that the Portuguese garrison was on the brink of starvation, casualties, etc. which should possibly briefly be discussed). If you don't have access to this source, I'm happy to help add the information if you wish);
 * I have not seen this work, if there is anything from it that you think should be added id be thankful if you did so. The details you mention seem to fit in. There is a mention of a Quaresma in some snippets of a portuguese source that i saw, though i am unsure of his capacity and the part he played in the battle. It would make sense if he was the one that surrendered the force, as Pinto was slain before the surrender. It also seems that Pinto had some experience fighting in the region before World War One, though im not to sure exactly on the details of his previous campaigns. There seem to be several useful portuguese works on the subject but alas i am not literate in portguese.XavierGreen (talk) 05:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I have added in the information that Paice includes, please check that you are happy with what I've added. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * are there any web sites that are reliable sources which cover the topic?;


 * It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * this is addressed by my point above about Paice's work.


 * It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
 * Generally seems fine to me, but I have one suggestion. In this sentence: "The German casualties were extremely light, with only a few Askaris and one European killed. The Portuguese, on the other hand, had suffered a massive defeat." I think you should be careful of terms like "extremely" and "massive". If you removed extremely and just said "light" it would still convey the meaning, while if you said "significant defeat" instead of "massive defeat" it seems a little bit more neutral.
 * I removed the extremely, but the portuguese did suffer a massive defeat. By failing to prevent Vorbeck from crossing the Rovuma, the portuguese failed to prevent him from resupplying and escaping encirclement by the allies. In defeating the portuguese, Vorbeck was able to escape stronger allied units to the north as well as fully resupply his force by capturing enough supplies to ensure that he could continue the campaign to the end of the war.XavierGreen (talk) 05:46, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is stable.
 * No edit wars etc.:
 * The article is not currently subject to an edit war.


 * It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
 * a (tagged and captioned): b (Is illustrated with appropriate images):  c (non-free images have fair use rationales):  d public domain pictures appropriately demonstrate why they are public domain':
 * Are there any images that might be relevant to this article? For instance paintings, perhaps, or images of the commanders?
 * This is not a GA requirement, so I won't hold it against the review, but it would be great even if just one image could be found and put into the infobox. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * There are some useful images here [] but there is no source info listed so idk if they are uploadable. Anything from the war is at least 92 years old though so those might be uploadable under a copyright expired lisence.XavierGreen (talk) 18:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting, I will take a look. I'm not really certain on copyright tags, but I might be able to work something out. Incidentally, I went to the source website and ran it through Google translate. It was very hard to read, but one or two minor details might be obtained from it. The link is here: . AustralianRupert (talk) 22:41, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Overall:
 * a Pass/Fail:
 * Generally this article is fine, however, there are a few things that I feel need to be done to bring this article up to GA status. Nevertheless, I do not feel that these warrant a quick fail as I believe that they are able to be achieved within a suitable timeframe (which is negotiable, as I am not fussed about the seven day rule). As such I will place it on hold to see what changes are made before deciding upon the outcome. I'm prepared to accept any reasonable explainations of my concerns, and any changes will be taken into consideration, of course. If you need clarification, please feel free to ask. Good work so far.
 * Please feel free to annotate on this page how you have addressed each of the concerns, either by responding on a new line below the comment or by placing the ✅ tags beside them, so I know where you are up to. AustralianRupert (talk) 03:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I think everything major has been covered off on. Could you please just check the few changes I made to see whether or not you are happy with them. If you are, just let me know and I will close the review as successful, otherwise feel free to tweak. Cheers. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:31, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * All the changes you've made are excellent, thanks for reviewing the article and also for helping to get the a class review for the action of 1 january 1800 completed.XavierGreen (talk) 18:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)