Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Atrocities in the Congo Free State/1

Atrocities in the Congo Free State

 * • [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Good_article_reassessment/Atrocities_in_the_Congo_Free_State/1&action=watch Watch article reassessment page] • GAN review not found
 * Result: to delist. The discussion is too scarce and evenly divided.  &#x222F; WBG converse 06:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Has been tagged with neutrality concerns since December 2016. The talk page is a mess to follow, but looking at the article I noticed some Red Flags. I detailed them at the talk page a month ago, but have got no responses. Hence I am bringing it here for reassessment.

From the talk page

The above is a mess to read and follow, in part due to the strange formatting, in part due to the length and in part due to the off topic nature. RFC is mentioned multiple times, but I can't find any correctly formatted or closed one. I would like to resolve the tag or delist the article. I do think there are issues with using Belgian scholars to source information on the Congo. This may be resolved by attributing this. The Much of the violence perpetrated in the Congo was inflicted on Africans by other Africans being the obvious one, but there are other occasions where there seems to be a softening of the blame (i.e. where it says The practice was comparatively common in colonial Africa). Then you have sentences like Some have argued that the atrocities in the Free State qualify as a genocide although the term's use is disputed by most academics which are a red flag for original research. I don't think the article is particularly unsalvageable, but for a article on a topic like this it needs to be very careful on how information is presented, especially if we are calling it Good.

I feel it needs more than just myself to judge the neutrality hence the community review instead of an individual one AIRcorn (talk) 08:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I see it has an individual reassessment tag on the talk page but that links to the GA review of 2016. Should that tag be there? Additionally the RfC seem pertinent now that there has been a page move and a undoing of that page move today. With admittedly an incomplete read of everything I am seeing enough red flags, as noted above, to suggest delist. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I undid the page move because I did not think it reflected consensus and because the term "crimes against humanity" did not exist until after the initiation of atrocities (though actually coined because of them). I've also added some additional info from a macro history by Timothy J. Stapleton which I think helps to balance out the genocide section. I wouldn't go for a delist yet, as I think the slant in this article can be fixed. For the record, I was a participant in the original "RfC", mostly a mess of a discussion incited by an editor who refused to utilize normal Wikipedia conversation mechanics. The reason why it never truly resolved was due to the banning of the initiating editor, a cautiousness towards tweaking the controversial content, and an eventual decline in interest. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Is there any support to keeping this listed? If not I am happy to do the mechanics of closing this review. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I've done what I can to tweak the genocide to stuff to be more true to the sources and I've added some information. As such, I think we should keep the article listed as GA. Others may feel free to disagree with me, but do know that I'll be available to improve the article if they have specific suggestions. -Indy beetle (talk) 13:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)


 * This has gone well and truly stale. I feel there have been enough improvements to allow this to stay a Good Article, from my limited understanding of the topic anyway. if you are happy I will close this as kept, otherwise it will probably end up a no-consensus to delist. AIRcorn (talk) 11:19, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel there are numerous issues with various parts (sample problem line: A reduction of the population of the Congo is noted by all who have compared the country at the beginning of Leopold's control with the beginning of Belgian state rule in 1908, but estimates of the death toll vary considerably. which is meant as a summary of the section to come but is a statement bold enough that it needs reworking) and think the LEAD is need of revision. This beyond the sort of detailed examination of sources that is beyond my capacity to do tat this time. I still do not feel that it meets criteria. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2018 (UTC)