Talk:Rhodesia Information Centre/GA1

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

Reviewer: Indy beetle (talk · contribs) 03:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'll take this one. Anything with "X country Information Centre" is doomed to be a propaganda outpost. Initial comments:

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:15, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * A sentence or two more in the "Role" section about how Southern Rhodesia was a British settler colony before it declared independence would be nice.
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Attribute the claim about the dissemination of "factual information" to the acting director of the centre
 * Done Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The centre lobbied members of parliament Members of the national Parliament? If so, link.
 * The source (which had gone missing due to editing) says that it lobbied 'politicians', and provides a range of examples at both the federal and state level - I've tweaked the text to reflect this. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The section title "Holt to McMahon Governments", while it fits with the theme for the sections, seems wrong considering that these governments aren't mentioned at all in the body text.
 * Good point - I've tweaked the text Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The Australian Government was one of few internationally to provide diplomatic support the Rhodesian regime What is meant by diplomatic support? They helped arrange meetings and represented interests on its behalf?
 * Added - the government provided passports to Rhodesian diplomats(!) and abstained on some UN resolutions. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * the Rhodesian Government referred to the centre as a "mission", using the same terminology as it applied to its diplomatic posts in Portugal and South Africa. Incorporating a link to Rhodesian mission in Lisbon would be nice.
 * Linked. Many thanks for these comments. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Noting my satisfaction with the above, I think the article meets the GA criteria as it is :

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:06, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) It is reasonably well written.
 * a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
 * 1) It is factually accurate and verifiable.
 * a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR):  d (copyvio and plagiarism):
 * 1) It is broad in its coverage.
 * a (major aspects): b (focused):
 * 1) It follows the neutral point of view policy.
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * 1) It is stable.
 * No edit wars, etc.:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): . No images, but infobox suffices for such a niche topic.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
 * a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions): . No images, but infobox suffices for such a niche topic.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass/Fail:
 * Thanks again for this review. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)