Talk:Uganda–Tanzania War/GA1

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

Reviewer: AustralianRupert (talk · contribs) 09:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I will review this article shortly. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Initial comments: Nice work, Indy, as always. I have a few suggestions for further improvement: AustralianRupert (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * in the lead, placed under its jurisdiction --> "placed under Uganda's jurisdiction"?
 * Done.
 * in the lead, Over the following years Amin's regime became destabilised --> "Over the following years Amin's regime was destabilised"?
 * Done.
 * in the lead, differing accounts of the events exist, but in October 1978 --> "differing accounts of the events exist. In October 1978"?
 * Done.
 * brought their mortars --> suggest linking mortar here
 * Done.
 * the following terms appear to be overlinked: Mutukula; Zambia; Masaka; Yoweri Museveni; T-54/T-55; BM-21 Grad; M4 Sherman; Mpigi; Zaire; Dar es Salaam
 * Fixed.
 * I see a mixture of US and British English variation, for instance: "armoured" (British) but also "behavior", "centers" and "emphasized" (US) -- there may be others
 * Anglicanised.
 * "vigiliantes" --> "vigilantes"
 * Fixed.
 * "capsised" --> "capsized"
 * Fixed.
 * debating the balance of powers among --> "debating the balance of power among"
 * Done.
 * Tanzania jets retaliated --> "Tanzanian jets retaliated"
 * Done.
 * declared that Kagera residents could go back to their region --> "declared that Kagera residents could return to the region"?
 * The word "return" is used in the following sentence and I didn't want to be redundant.
 * a fight between an Ugandan woman --> "a Ugandan"?
 * Fixed.
 * reached the Bukoba-Kyaka area and... endash instead of hyphen here
 * Done.
 * enemy": Instead: not sure of the capitalisation here
 * Fixed.
 * "sweetpotatoes" --> "sweet potatoes"?
 * Both styles are actually correct; I work in horticulture at a university, and on all our research documents we style it as one word so as to avoid confusion with Irish potatoes. I've added some info to the Sweet potato article under the naming section (with good sources) that explains this discrepancy.
 * Ok, no worries. I learn something every day! AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * only shouldered most of anti-Amin war effort --> "only shouldered most of the anti-Amin war effort"
 * Done.
 * The last Tanzanian troops left Uganda --> "The last Tanzanian occupation troops left Uganda"? (given that military advisers remained until 1984, one imagines that they were also "troops"?)
 * Good point, change implemented.
 * and would invade Uganda in autumn 1980 --> "and invaded Uganda in autumn 1980"
 * Done.
 * most notably, the over 50% of all Tanzanian soldiers belonged to the Kuria people by 1978, although less than 1% of the country's population were Kuria. --> "most notably, over 50% of all Tanzanian soldiers belonged to the Kuria people by 1978, although they made up less than 1% of the country's population"
 * Done.
 * published War in Uganda: The legacy of Idi Amin in 1983 --> title case caps for the title of the book
 * Done.
 * Eminue 2010 appears in the Citations but not the Works cited section
 * Added full citation.
 * same as above for Basey & Oshita 2010
 * Fixed.
 * italics: "AllAfrica.com" -- citation # 237 presents this without italics, but citation # 262 uses italics
 * Standardised.
 * "Chapter 4 : Global Films and Local Reception" -- suggest removing the space before the colon
 * in the Works cited section, Amos appears to be out of alphabetical order, as does the "Accessions List"
 * Fixed.
 * Palgrave is probably overlinked in the Works cited section
 * Fixed.
 * the title of the Macrae source probably should have title case capitaliation and I suggest removing the space before the colon
 * Done.
 * the Harneit-Sievers source probably should have hyphens for the ISBN for consistency with the other entries
 * Done.
 * Lupogo: suggest removing the space before the colon in the title (suggest looking for other examples of this throughout the article)
 * Done.
 * loc for publication of the Hockenberry work?
 * Strange one that; it doesn't seem to have one. The book is a published transcript of radio interviews, so that's probably why it hasn't even turned up on worldcat.
 * citation # 246 -- does this need an issue number?
 * I couldn't locate it.
 * No worries, thanks for checking. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * ext links work (no action required)
 * Earwig reports that a copyright violation is unlikely: (no action required)
 * Thank you for reviewing the article. I have responded to the above comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:03, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * No worries, finalising the review below. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Criteria

1. Well written: ✅
 * a. the prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and
 * b. it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.

2. 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. all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;
 * c. it contains no original research; and
 * d. it contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism.

3. Broad in its coverage: ✅


 * a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic; and
 * b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. ✅

5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute ✅

6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio: ✅


 * a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and
 * b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
 * Changes above have addressed my earlier comments. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)