Talk:South Kasai/GA1

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

Reviewer: Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 19:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Fantastic! Thanks very much for taking this on! —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox and lead


 * Is "South Kasaian" common usage? I've usually seen "South Kasai" used as an adjective as well as a noun, similar to New Zealand.
 * Yes, although "common" is not really the right word for anything related to South Kasai. There're examples of the term "Kasaian" in use in numerous places on Google Books anyway.
 * "the state declared its autonomy or independence from the Congo on 9 August 1960" But we've just said it never claimed full independence? This is an issue throughout the article. I know it is not clear exactly what happened but try to find a consistent wording for what was claimed. Perhaps "autonomy" or "secession" or something?
 * Fair point - it's all pretty confusing. I think I'll go for "secession"... —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Kalonji was appointed President" by who? himself?
 * No idea, not sure where I could find this out though.
 * need a second comma after Belgium; also not sure we need to wikilink (most people know what Belgium is)
 * Done. To be honest I think removing the link risks a kind of ethnocentrism. If we wikilink the DRC, we need to wikilink Belgium too. Too many assumptions about our readers (and their cultural backgrounds by extension) is perhaps not advisable.
 * "succeeded in dealing with numerous crises" why not just "resolved numerous crises" or similar
 * Done.
 * "Soon after its independence, South Kasaian and Congolese troops clashed as the Congolese government ordered an offensive against Kasai in 1960." Why not just "Soon after South Kasai's declaration, the central Congolese government ordered an offensive against it."
 * Done.
 * "and his later arrest and assassination" I know from personal knowledge that we mean Lumumba, but the prose doesn't make this clear
 * Good point
 * "both served in both the South Kasaian government and the Congolese parliament" check this prose
 * Done
 * "South Kasai continued to held quasi-independence" typo: "held" should be "hold", or remove "continued to"
 * Done
 * "were able to move" could just be "moved"
 * "In April 1961, Kalonji later took the royal title Mulopwe" Don't need "later"
 * Done
 * In footnote "d", I would recommend adding in brackets when Mobutu was in power. "During Mobutu Sese Seko's rule in the Congo (1965–97)" or similar.
 * Done
 * "Kalonji was arrested on a pretext" seems too vague for me.
 * Done.
 * I think you could just as well tack the fifth paragraph in the lead on the end of the fourth.
 * Done.
 * In the infobox, perhaps reword the caption to "bordered by secessionist Katanga to the south".
 * Done
 * Were French and Tshiluba both official languages, or was one or the other official and the other just widely spoken?
 * Honestly no idea. They were added by another user and I can't think of any source that I could check it in. Will remove.

Background


 * Need a space after "c." e.g. "c. 1920"
 * Done.
 * Nice picture of the chiefs. Good for context. I would recommend putting a wikilink on "Luba" in the caption though
 * Done
 * Why is Tshiluba in italics in the prose and without in the infobox? I would recommend without.
 * Done
 * "the state began to treat the two groups differently and applied different policies to each" seems to me that these two clauses mean the same thing. Either could be lost without effect
 * "power Luba elite" do we mean "powerful"?
 * Done
 * "by the discovery of a colonial proposal" discovered by whom?
 * Not sure I'm afraid.
 * We mention évolués without first introducing them or mentioning what they are. Perhaps put a brief explanation in brackets: "primarily among the évolués ("Westernised" urban blacks)." or something like that?
 * Done
 * "but others accused the party of being too moderate.[13] Lumumba became a leading figure within the MNC, and by the end of 1959, the party claimed to have 58,000 members." I would move the "others accused the party of being too moderate" to after where we say how many members it claimed to have. Then you can lose "Aside from the MNC" and go straight into talking about the other parties. "Others accused the party of being too moderate. A number of other parties also existed, distinguished by their radicalism ..."
 * I'm sorry but I'm not quite clear what you're suggesting here?
 * OK, I copyedited directly, hope this is okay. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  19:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "a strong Léopoldville-based central government" perhaps reword slightly to make clear Léopoldville was the capital of the Congo. "a strong central government in the capital Léopoldville."
 * Done

Secession


 * "Despite rejecting earlier proposals Luba repatriations to Kasai in January 1960" This isn't clear. Please consider rewording
 * Is that better?
 * "in order to" You don't need the words "in order"—"to" can be substituted for "in order to" in all instances without loss of meaning
 * "Kalonji actually visited Katanga at the start of August 1960, shortly after the secession, where on the 8 August he declared that Kasai "must be divided at all costs."" Choppy prose, recommend reviewing. Which secession? Katanga's? He made this statement on 8 August in Katanga? Why "actually visited Katanga" rather than just "visited Katanga"? Was it so unusual to go there?
 * Done.
 * I'm somewhat confused as to why at the end of the first paragraph we suddenly jump back from 8 August to before Congolese independence. I'd move this back to a more logical place chronologically. Perhaps just after we mention independence? "The Republic of the Congo received independence on 30 June 1960 under a joint government of Kasa-Vubu and Lumumba. Four days previously, MNC-K officials had petitioned the Léopoldville parliament ..."
 * done.
 * "Unlike Katanga, however, the proclamation of South Kasai did not explicitly state's inclusion in the Republic of the Congo" review, doesn't make sense grammatically
 * Done
 * "and instead more resembled the self-declared local governments in Équateur Province" What were these?
 * "in order to" see above
 * "The secession was praised" by who?
 * I don't think any one person. The quote is from Willame's analysis of popular opinion at the time.
 * I've had a look at the source and tried to reflect what it says about journalists etc in Léopoldville liking it. Hope this is okay? —  Cliftonian   (talk)  19:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "In practice however," Not sure you need "however"
 * "Despite the secession" perhaps "Despite this"?
 * Done.
 * "Kalonji continued to sit in the central Congolese parliament in Léopoldville as a deputy along with members of his party" Perhaps "Kalonji and members of his party continued to sit as deputies in the central Congolese parliament in Léopoldville"?
 * Done
 * Didn't the other deputies in Léopoldville object to them continuing to sit while they were concurrently unilaterally legislating for South Kasai somewhere else?
 * Apparently not. I believe the Katangans might have done likewise for a while.
 * "Kalonji was declared President and Joseph Ngalula Prime Minister" How? Were they elected? By the party's membership or was there a general election? Or did they just declare themselves President and Prime Minister?
 * As before, I'm not sure. I very much doubt any voting was done.
 * "Although the Luba-Kasai had never lived in a single state before" What about the Luba Empire, before the white man came?
 * The Luba Empire was really a federation of local states rather than a single polity.
 * "currently known as Mbuji-Mayi" when was it renamed?
 * Under Mobutu? Not sure.
 * [Says here 1963 https://books.google.co.il/books?id=YMt341aTT8UC&lpg=PA125&dq=mbuji-mayi%20bakwanga&pg=PA129#v=onepage&q=mbuji-mayi%20bakwanga&f=false]. I think this could be a useful source for other stuff in the article too from a brief skim-read. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  19:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * perhaps quotation marks on "big man"? Also our article on "big man" seems to talk about the south Pacific rather than Africa and tribalism rather than proper governments—are we sure this is what is meant?
 * Sure. It's sometimes used in talking about African culture in postcolonial politics too.
 * "which allowed Luba refugees to be settled moved into employment" review, not proper grammar
 * Done.
 * "Social services were "relatively well-run"." who says? By what standards? African standards?
 * No idea. It's actually a direct quote from the source.
 * So South Kasai didn't have a flag before 12 July 1961?
 * Well, in all honesty, I very much doubt whether much South Kasaian flag waving was done at all. I think it was more designed to give it the trappings of a state than as a true symbol of Kasaian-ness.
 * Was the gendarmerie created immediately on seceding from the Congo or later? Or did it exist already? Was it all local guys or did they bring in whites to help out like in Katanga?
 * Not really. A couple of advisors perhaps?
 * Was Ngalula killed or forced into exile? Why was he?
 * "pro-westerner"—where we mean West in a geopolitical sense, it should be capitalized
 * Done
 * "the title was bestowed on Kalonji's father on 12 April 1961" by who? The chiefs?
 * Yes.

Collapse and reintegration


 * "fighting with Katangese troops" don't need "with", "fighting Katangese troops" means the same thing
 * Done.
 * "to return to the Congo" perhaps "to recover"
 * "rejected its sovereignty" perhaps "rejected Congolese sovereignty" to be clearer
 * Done
 * "consider the secessions to be internal political matters and its own mission to be maintaining basic law and order" "Consider" should be "considering"
 * Done
 * Don't need wikilink on the United States or the word "communist" before Soviet Union, I think everybody knows the USSR was communist
 * See comments above on this.
 * perhaps make clear Élisabethville was actually in Katanga, as we've just said Katangese troops were attacking them
 * Done.
 * "Allegations of genocide and brutality by the ANC were used to provide legitimacy to Kasa-Vubu's dismissal of Lumumba" used by whom?
 * "In the aftermath of the campaign, the South Kasaian state was able to provide substantial aid to its refugees, many of whom were resettled in homes and jobs" This seems to repeat something that was already said in above in the "governance" section
 * That's true, but I think it's also relevant here. It is cited again too.
 * "its state and authorities retained a degree of independence and were not dismantled and co-existed with the Congolese state" This isn't clear. Recommend rewording.
 * Done
 * "Congolese delegates, as well as ANC and UN troops" perhaps "Congolese delegates and ANC and UN troops"?
 * Too many "ands", surely ;)
 * "plotted to overthrow the state" which state? South Kasai or the Congo itself?
 * Done.
 * Why "Barcelona in Francoist Spain" and not just "Barcelona, Spain"?
 * I think this is relevant and might explain why Spain (seemingly pretty random). Political sympathy must have played a role.
 * "calls for South Kasai to fully rejoin the Congo which it soon did" when?
 * Done.

Aftermath
 * "after UN forces began to take a more aggressive stance" But we've already said U Thant had begun taking a more aggressive stance earlier than this?
 * Done
 * "As a compromise" what compromise?
 * The Consitution. Reworded to make clear.
 * "In order to" see above
 * "the province was later restructured" when? by whom?
 * Under Mobutu at various times.
 * "Most of the South Kasaian soldiers were integrated into the ANC after the dissolution of the state, however nearly 2,000 loyalists went into hiding to await Kalonji's possible restoration." This isn't a proper sentence. Try substituting "though" or "but" for "however".
 * Done
 * "to show his legitimacy" what?
 * Done
 * "which until 1990, was the nation's only legal political party under Mobutu's revised constitution" remove the comma after 1990, but one after "which"
 * Done
 * "efforts were made to remove all colonial influences" Such as? Perhaps mention some places that were renamed.
 * That's in a footnote already I believe.
 * "By the time of its disestablishment, Mobutu's rule was characterised by widespread croneyism, corruption and economic mismanagement" Who saw it like this? I don't doubt it's true, but it still doesn't seem like a very neutral statement. I would say "was widely perceived by outside observers to be characterised by" or something like that.
 * Made it to "Zaire" rather than "Mobutu's regime." The failure of Mobutu to create a working state structure was, after all, the reason for his deposition in the 1990s.
 * "a decline in support for the concept of the state" which state? The Congo?
 * Already later in the sentence, no?
 * "Mobutu was strongly in favour of centralisation and one of his first acts, in 1965, were to reunify provinces and abolish much of their independent legislative capacity" This seems to be a repetition of something in the previous paragraph
 * I think it's worth re-stating. The first paragraph is a basic summary of Mobutu's rule, the second is more narrowly focused on his anti-federalist ideology and the results.

GA checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria Looks pretty good from first glance. I am not being quite as rigorous as I would be in an FA candidacy. This needs a little bit of work first in my opinion, but I think GA is easily achievable. My concerns are mainly regarding the prose.
 * 1) Is it reasonably well written?
 * A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
 * Quite a few issues here. I have listed above.
 * B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
 * Looks generally good enough for GA in this regard.
 * 1) Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
 * A. Has an appropriate reference section:
 * B. Citations to reliable sources, where necessary:
 * C. No original research:
 * All this is fine.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. Major aspects:
 * B. Focused:
 * Don't see any issues here.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * Fair representation without bias:
 * I have not seen any major issues with neutrality. A couple minor things I have listed above.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * No edit wars, etc:
 * No issues I can see. One main contributor.
 * 1) Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * All this seems okay with licensing—Congolese copyright law seems so far as I can see to release government works into the public domain, so I will let this go, but be prepared for more meticulous inspection of this if the article goes to FAC.
 * B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * OK here.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Good luck improving the article. I hope all of this helps and look forward to seeing the article progress. Thanks for the nice read! Cheers. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  19:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for taking this on! A very thorough review, as always! —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've replied a couple of the points above—just rectify these few and I think we can wrap this up. The rest of the stuff above I am happy to let go at GA stage, but please keep them in mind for future development of the article, etc. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  19:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great stuff. I've made your suggested correction on Mbuji-Mayi and have no problems with the ones you made either. I've replaced the authorlink to Nzongola-Ntalaja. Perhaps I'll get round to producing an article on him at some point - see his profile at The Guardian here and at the USHMM here. 19:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm happy to pass the article for GA now. Well done! :) I hope this review has been helpful. Keep up the good work Brigade Piron! Cheers again. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's brilliant! Many thanks for your very sound commentary and for taking on the review in the first place! —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Great stuff. I've made your suggested correction on Mbuji-Mayi and have no problems with the ones you made either. I've replaced the authorlink to Nzongola-Ntalaja. Perhaps I'll get round to producing an article on him at some point - see his profile at The Guardian here and at the USHMM here. 19:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I'm happy to pass the article for GA now. Well done! :) I hope this review has been helpful. Keep up the good work Brigade Piron! Cheers again. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  21:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's brilliant! Many thanks for your very sound commentary and for taking on the review in the first place! —Brigade Piron (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)