Talk:Politics of Botswana/GA1

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

Nominator:

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 19:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this review; it will be used in the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive. Initial impressions are positive. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation :
 * 1) Is it 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. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * At least a substantial proportion of sources have been spot-checked and verified:
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Pass or Fail:

Spotchecks
A spotcheck of ten randomly chosen citation numbers from this version of the article.


 * 21 good 4x
 * 41 good, although a paragraph relying on a single citation may be WP:UNDUE.
 * How critical is this? Ideally I wouldn't want to remove otherwise verifiable information if it's not heavily contested.
 * 48 mostly good, but the source attributes an importance to regional and not just international diplomacy that doesn't come through in the article, and it notes informal relations with apartheid South Africa.
 * I specified "formal" relations. What changes are you hoping for regarding regional/international diplomacy? Both are covered to some extent.
 * 13 I don't see where "became a major political issue as its severity became apparent in the 1990s" is supported in the text
 * Removed.
 * 10 good
 * 5 good
 * 22 good 5x
 * 2 good 2x
 * 4 good 2x
 * 25 good

Out of 19 individual citations checked, only a small proportion have problems. Therefore, source spotcheck ✅ passed. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

General comments

 * Nominator is the primary author. As on a first inspection, there only appear to be minor issues with prose/MOS compliance, I'll do the source spotcheck first (above) to get it out of the way. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Which WP:ENGVAR does this article use? It seems to follow neither BrE, CwE or AmE.
 * I added a BrE template and hopefully it lines up with that now.


 * Prose comments
 * Lead is generally good, but has a habit of saying "in Botswana" too often; I think we can take that for granted. The last paragraph is more stop-start than the others, so sentences could be combined.
 * Trimmed a few.
 * this is somewhat vague; the source says that British influence had been active since the 1920s, not that the UK was actively involved. You may also want to link United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
 * Reworded and linked.
 * This sentence is somewhat of a non-sequitur with what comes before or after; you may want to move it to the end for flow reasons.
 * Done.
 * you may want to say that this is the country's military
 * Added.
 * the passive voice is unhelpful, especially combined with the semi-unclear "they/them" use.
 * Reworded
 * for what?
 * Clarified.
 * I think this could be very easily simplified.
 * Done.
 * The "Legislative branch" subsection contains a hatnote to Parliament of Botswana, but does not actually define what that is, meaning that it is unclear what "parliament" means later in the article.
 * Replaced all uses of "parliament" with "National Assembly", which is the actual relevant body in each case.
 * "currently" is sourced to a thirteen-year-old reference.
 * Removed both instances of "currently"
 * The "Political parties" and "Elections" sections could be made subsections of the "National government" section. I would also place the "Policy issues" section before the "Human rights" section.
 * I moved the policy issues and human rights sections. I'd rather not move political parties and elections under national government since they're not solely national institutions.
 * The UDC's article, which itself dates from 2014, says it began in 2012, so I think that 2019 date might need some adjusting/qualifying.
 * Fixed with new sources.
 * could use some explanation/example.
 * I specified "botho philosophy" instead of just "botho". Is there anything specific I should add?
 * a timeframe would be nice.
 * Added.
 * is the grammar correct here? is an "a" needed between practiced and realpolitik? unsure.
 * I suspect that this is one of those circumstances where having an article is correct regardless, so I added it.

Putting this on hold while the above (minor) issues are sorted out. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * , I've replied to everything above. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 05:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)