Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fall of Kampala/archive1

Fall of Kampala

 * Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

This article is about the fall of Kampala, the capital of Uganda, to Tanzanian and Ugandan rebel forces in April 1979. This marked the first time an African state had captured the capital of another African state, and meant the overthrow of Idi Amin's murderous regime. If this article passes FA (particularly before the 40th anniversary of the event) then it would herald a great improvement of our coverage of the Uganda-Tanzania War and Africa topics overall. This article has passed a MilHist A-class review (including a source review). Most of it was written with Tony Avirgan's and Martha Honey's War in Uganda: The Legacy of Idi Amin, with additional information from contemporaneous newspaper reports. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from Jens Lallensack
Excellent, interesting article. Happy to see some African history. I only have few minor nitpicks/questions: --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The article pretty much takes the "invaders" perspective, with little information on what the Ugandan side did. I guess this is owed to sparse sources?
 * Quite so. The bulk of this article was written with Tony Avirgan's and Martha Honey's War in Uganda. Other sources about the war often cite them and recognize their book as one of the few in depth works on the conflict. Avirgan and Honey traveled in one of the 19th Battalion's tanks as the unit entered Kampala. They give a mostly Tanzanian/Ugandan rebel perspective, though they try to compensate with seized Ugandan government documents. The only real Ugandan-perspective sources about the war are the interviews published in the Daily Monitor and The Citizen and Major Bernard Rwehururu's memoir. Unfortunately, I've found no extensive interviews with any of the soldiers who were in Kampala, and Rwehururu claimed to have been in Sembabule at the time.
 * Lieutenant Colonel Salim Hassan Boma led a detachment on a security sweep, and on the edge of the city they discovered Luzira Prison. – what is a "security sweep"? Anything to link it to? And why was the prison "discovered" rather than "located"? Was its position held secret by the Ugandans?
 * Essentially a mopping up operation. Perhaps I should excise "security"? As for "discovering" the prison, Avirgan and Honey word it such that Boma and his men did not intend on finding the prison, but stumbled across it. They did not have maps of the city and had to rely on a confused guide, so its quite possible the Tanzanians did not know about the prison, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was secret. They just hadn't intended on locating it.
 * This strategy failed (two civilians were accidentally killed in the pandemonium), and eventually the Tanzanians were authorised to seize a radio and a watch each from abandoned homes. – I don't quite understand what the second part of the sentence has to do with the first part. Why were they authorised?
 * Sentence break at the comma added. Avirgan and Honey don't really explain why, but it seems Msuya felt that it was ok to let his soldiers do some minor looting in the context of the local population basically destroying their own city.
 * I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, supporting now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Support from Cas Liber
Taking a look now....


 * I think it would be good if the origin of sources for the documentation of the battle (i.e. mostly Tanzanian) could be incorporated into the article somehow.

Otherwise, nothing really to complain about....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC) Image review
 * Added The 19th Battalion began its advance at 03:36, accompanied by freelance journalists Tony Avirgan and Martha Honey. and Avirgan and Honey included an account of the battle in their 1983 book on the Uganda–Tanzania War, War in Uganda: The legacy of Idi Amin. Other than that I feel bounded by WP:OR not to go into a discussion of historiography. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * That's cool. all good then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:06, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Suggest adding alt text
 * Done.
 * Confused about the Amin image - this appears to have been published before the Flickr upload, why would the uploading organization have the right to release as CC? Unless they were only released rights to the scan, in which case we'd need a tag for the original work. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * The scanned booklet from where the photo came was a published record of a British Commonwealth meeting, but it was printed in Uganda, and I don't think that is compatible with Ugandan copyright law. I've changed it to a photo taken by an official Israeli government photographer which meets the condition of the Israeli PD license, but I'm not sure if a US PD license is also required (the other license says nothing about further compatibility with US PD being necessary). -Indy beetle (talk) 02:58, 27 January 2019 (UTC)


 * It is required, and given the date of that image, might be a problem. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
 * *sigh* photo removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Support. I reviewed this at A-class and found it engaging, well-written, and well-researched. I considered that it met the FA criteria then and was pleased to see it nominated here. African history is an under-represented represtend subject at FA level. HJ Mitchell &#124; Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Source review - spotchecks not done


 * How are you deciding which statistics to use in the infobox, given the variance?
 * Changed Ugandan killed to "Dozens of Ugandan soldiers killed", as this is more ambiguous and there appears to be more consensus for this, even if the exact number may have been in the low hundreds. The other casualty estimations aren't so disputed.


 * FN15 should include agency
 * Done.


 * Fn46 returns server error. Same with FN76
 * Archived version added to 46, direct link to Time.com instead of proxied database added to 76.


 * Don't use proxied database links, as in FN73
 * Link removed.


 * FN78 is missing retrieval date. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:14, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 78 Is a print source from a compilation published via Google Books. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie
Please revert any copyedits you don't agree with. Overall this looks in very good shape; these are minor points. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:12, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
 * the Tanzanians revised their offensive designs for Kampala: "revised" makes it sounds as though they had prior offensive designs for Kampala; if they did, they haven't been mentioned. Would "made offensive plans for Kampala" be correct, or were they really revising an existing plan?
 * They had already drawn up plans, and this is mentioned in the article body. Clarified lead to say the Tanzanians revised their existing offensive designs for Kampala.
 * Tanzanian artillery bombarded certain sectors of the city: this seems vague. Were they actually targeting specific sectors, but the source doesn't say which sectors?  Or would it be enough to just say "bombarded the city"?  The same phrase is in both the lead and the body.
 * Changed to parts of the city. Avirgan and Honey only say that "shelling was going on". I think it would be inaccurate to imply that the entire city was being subject to artillery fire, since large portions of it had been occupied by the TPDF and UNLF at that point.
 * The infobox says "several dozen" Ugandan soldiers were killed, but we also have "killed 80 Ugandan soldiers" in just one action by the 201st Brigade. If the latter is not definitely a reliable number (as appears to be the case from the discussion of casualties in the "Aftermath" section) then I think we should say so.
 * I suspect that most if not all casualty estimates for the battle do not include these statistics. Even Avirgan and Honey treat the roadblock clashes as something more or less "away" from the battle, as they took place to the north, outside of the city. Thus, I have not included them in the infobox, but I included the info in the body text because it's certainly germane to to the topic at hand. This of course leads to difficulty in determining whether it can be said that the 201st participated in the actual battle. Pollack for his part considered the Tanzanian attack a "three-pronged assault" and seems to generalize that the brigade was indeed a combatant in the battle. The mention of "3 Tanzanian brigades" under the strength= parameter of the infobox is further complicated by the fact that the Daily Monitor mentions that elements of the 205th were in the northern section of the city on 11 April, which Avirgan and Honey make no mention of. The last time they mention the unit is when it was deployed in Sembabule in March (the town probably fell around April 5 or April 6), which means the Daily Monitor's claim is possible. I could go either way on cutting the infobox strength down to 2 brigades.
 * I don't have enough background in MilHist articles to be comfortable recommending one or the other, so I'm striking this, but perhaps this is something might comment on if he closes this FAC. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thoughts? -Indy beetle (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Msuya was eager to complete his battalion's objectives before nightfall in two hours: suggest "Msuya was eager to complete his battalion's objectives in the two hours remaining before nightfall".
 * Done.
 * with various sectors responsible to certain battalions and commanders, most of which had already dispersed: slightly confused phrasing. Perhaps "with various sectors assigned to certain battalions and commanders; most of these forces had already dispersed."  The problem with "most of which" is that it's not clear whether it refers to the battalions or the commanders.
 * Both most of the troops and most of the commanders had fled.
 * OK, but I still think it doesn't read smoothly. How about "...a detailed plan for Kampala's defence which specified the battalions and commanders responsible for each sector; most had already dispersed." I'm guessing you have "battalions and commanders" at the end of the sentence in order to connect more naturally to the "which" in the next clause, but this inverts the sentence order (and you have sectors responsible to commanders rather than vice versa), and it doesn't fix the problem anyway because the reader wonders whether "which" refers to the battalions or the commanders or both.  Putting "each sector" at the end of the clause, as I'm suggesting, makes the first part read more naturally, and then the semi-colon is necessary because we have to avoid the reader from seeing "each sector had dispersed".  The semi-colon puts enough of a break in for the reader to go back to the main subject of the previous clause.  That's my theory, anyway.  I'm not going to oppose if you don't use my wording, but I think you do have to at least fix "sectors responsible to...commanders", which is upside-down. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 02:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggested wording implemented. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Boma ordered over 1,700 inmates held to be set free: If this means there were 1,700 inmates, all of whom were set free, I'd suggest "...they discovered Luzira Prison, where over 1,700 prisoners were held; Boma ordered them all to be set free."
 * Done.
 * Is there a link (a red link would be fine) for the Daily Monitor? I see we have an article here, but that article is about a newspaper founded in 1992.
 * That's the correct publication. Linked.
 * OK -- that article is evidently wrong about the date, but that's not your problem, so striking. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * He estimated that the total statistic could be as high as 500: "statistic" is an odd word to use here; I think "count" would be more natural.
 * Done
 * Baldwin Mzirai stated that 300 corpses were found: suggest saying who Mzirai is -- a journalist? A combatant?  A historian?
 * The back of his book reveals that he was a journalist for two Tanzanian state-party newspapers. Clarified his profession.
 * Is "undernourishment" a bowdlerized way of saying Sabuni was starved to death?
 * Umm, yes I would suspect. However, the source is not clear as to whether this was deliberate or an unintended consequence of poor treatment.
 * The sentences from "Caught unprepared..." to "...struggled for power." seem to be a paragraph on the political aftermath that has been inserted into the middle of more specific details; I'd pull this out and make it its own paragraph, possibly joining it with the last two sentences of the section, starting with "Nyerere's decision...".
 * Done.
 * I think that's a big improvement to the flow of the section. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph of "Legacy" doesn't flow very well. Could we cut the quote from Kiwanuka?  It's vanilla, and the preceding sentence makes the unprecedented nature of the battle clear.  Obasanjo's comment also seems unremarkable.
 * Kiwanuka's comment quote expanded moved to its own quote= section. Obasanjo's comment was included to emphasize the controversial nature of the event. Revised to say Olusegun Obasanjo shared similar concerns.
 * I've responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:29, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Struck most points above; one reply for you to look at, and I think you missed a couple of minor points? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:52, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Two more strikes; just one unstruck point left. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * All issues now dealt with. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 22:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 05:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)