Talk:Political history of Zimbabwe/GA1

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

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry for the short delay. I've now done a very, very, quick read of the article and on that basis, the article as a whole appears to be at or about GA-level (possibly higher). However, I'm not sure about the Lead (I'll come back to the later, if necessary).

I'm now going to review the article in more depth, starting at the Before 1923: rule by the British South Africa Company section, working my way to the end and then going back to do the WP:Lead. This stage is mostly looking to see if there are any "problems", in which case I'll summarise them here.

Feel free, if you wish, to respond/reply/comment about specific comments below mine. I hope to get the whole review competed by this weekend. Pyrotec (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review so far, I look forward to more. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No problems. It's an interesting article and Ian Smith onwards is within my memory (not a very clear memory, but its there somewhere) Pyrotec (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Before 1923: rule by the British South Africa Company -
 * Background -
 * Generally OK.
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk)However, the start of the final paragraph is vague in respect of date(s). It states: "Mashonaland, to the north-east of Matabeleland, violently rebelled months later ..." from the context I assume after what was called in the article "rose again in 1896", i.e. Second Matabele War (March 1896 - October 1897). So was the rebellion a few months after the start of, or the end of, the Second Matabele War?
 * The Mashona rebellion was part of the Second Matabele War, starting a few months after the Matabele rebellion. They were separate, but are generally considered to be parts of the same war. —Cliftonian (talk) 07:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I now understand but I "don't read the article" as saying that. I read it as:, war finished (link tells me that took 18 months). : "Mashonaland, .... violently rebelled months later ........forcibly put down ". Could (for instance) the "Mashonaland, .... violently rebelled" sentence be considered part of the 2nd paragraph; and the (new) 3rd paragraph starts with: "Following these victories, the British South Africa Company controlled .... "? (Perhaps not? ). Pyrotec (talk) 15:54, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think that makes sense. I have amended accordingly. What do you think now? —Cliftonian (talk)</b></b> 16:09, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Much better, thanks. Sorry, I didn't notice that change had been made: I've three tabs open in my brower: the article, the /GA1 and the article diffs, and two of them were out of date. Pyrotec (talk) 16:24, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Company administrators (1890–1923) -
 * ✅ Pyrotec (talk) Again, there is a problem of time scale. In the previous subsection it states "Matabeleland and Mashonaland, both of which lay south of Zambezi, were integrated as "Southern Rhodesia" in 1901." and in this subsection it states: "The head of Southern Rhodesia's government during this time was in effect the company's regional administrator. The first of these was appointed in 1890, ...", but 1901 was eleven years after 1890 (the start of this period of interest).
 * Well, I admit this was a mistake on my part. I was trying to make clear the context. I've reworded, hope it's better. <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 07:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

...Stopping for now. To be continued. Pyrotec (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Frontier politics: towards responsible government -
 * Looks OK.


 * 1923 to 1979: Premiers and Prime Ministers -
 * Responsible government (1923–53) & As a territory in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland (1953–63) -
 * These two subsections Look OK.


 * From Federation to UDI (1964–65) -
 * Looks OK.
 * Just a comment I read about "Salisbury's/Salisbury" and I immediately think that its a person (and who is it?), but its a place (the Capital city). Note: I'm not asking for any action.


 * As an unrecognised state (1965–79) -
 * Looks OK.


 * After 1979: Zimbabwe Rhodesia, interim British control, and Zimbabwe -
 * Looks OK.


 * WP:Lead -
 * This should comply with WP:Lead, which (in summary) means that it should introduce the topic of the article (✅); summarise the main points, with the emphasis in the lead in proportion to the importance of a "subtopic" in the body of the article; and not tease by including material that does not appear in the main body of the article (✅). The current lead provides a reasonable summary, I thought at first that there was something missing, but it mostly all there. Pyrotec (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Overall summary
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria <hr width=50%>An interesting and informative article.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose quality:
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. References to sources:
 * Well referenced.
 * B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
 * Well referenced.
 * C. No original research:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Well illustrated.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Well illustrated.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
 * Well illustrated.
 * B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
 * Well illustrated.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:

I'm happy to be able to award this article GA-status and I suspect with a bit more editing it could make WP:FAC, I was slightly hesitant at first about the lead so (if my crystal ball works) a minor "fattening" up of that might be considered necessary. WP:PR is probably its next step on its upward path. Congratulations on a good article and now a Good Article. Pyrotec (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review and the kind words, Pyro! <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">—<b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">Cliftonian</b> <b style="color:white; background:darkgreen">(talk)</b></b> 20:01, 23 June 2012 (UTC)