Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo

No consensus to promote at this time - Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Armed Forces of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it clearly doesn't meet the A-Class criteria, and seems unlikely to meet them unless a significant effort is made to bring it up to speed. It was promoted in 2007, then went successfully through FAC later that year, and has was demoted via a FAR in 2018. It looks like C-Class to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:11, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it pretty clearly fails criteria b1. There may be a need to conduct some sort of A-Class sweeps for these older promotions, as the standards have changed a pretty fair bit since '07. Hog Farm Bacon 00:25, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Endorse review and/or demotion. It would be really difficult to give an accurate *and* up to date assessment unless high quality recent sources are available, thus failing WikiProject Military history/Assessment/A-Class, criterion 1, verifiable against reputable sources. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:27, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm the user responsible for FA-demotion. When held up to the A-class criteria, it quite clearly fails A1; many parts of the text are unsourced, the citation style is grossly inconsistent, and there are some questionable sources in there (US Department of State telegrams provided via Wikileaks is not ideal). The prose style is also lackluster. It also probably does not meet A2, as so much is outdated (last best sources were from 2007). This is an army which has been at war for over 20 years now, and stuff changes about its composition frequently. There is inadequate discussion of brassage and the laws which govern the armed forces, and basically nothing about the military justice system. It is hardly "comprehensive". I also question whether so much about the Congo Crisis and 1960 Force Publique mutiny is WP:Due. I applaud those who are doing their best to clean up the article, but I don't even know if its realistically possible to bring this up to par with A-class standards until war stops in the Congo and new sources are released. I support demotion. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Comments/suggestions: I have done a little bit of work today to hopefully clean up a few minor aspects, but unfortunately I probably cannot assist with much more (certainly nothing substantive given my lack of sources or subject matter expertise). I have the following suggestions, in case someone else can assist: AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * The Force Publique saw combat in Cameroun: suggest adding a year, or year range for this
 * I have adjusted this from what I can glean from other articles -- it would still need a ref, though, I'm sorry. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * the narrative seems to jump from World War II to 1960 -- suggest adding a sentence about this period to the initial history paragraph
 * at five paragraphs, the lead is one too many per WP:LEAD: suggest condensing into four paragraphs
 * the lead talks about a 2010 law and legal standing in general, but probably needs to discuss this in the body, as well as providing an update
 * unfortunately there are many paragraphs or parts of paragraphs that appear to be uncited; for the A-class rating to remain, the uncited information at the end of these paragraphs will need to be referenced
 * the infobox lists a a 2004 budget estimate, a 2008 estimate of the number of pers over 60 and a 2016 GDP percentage -- is it possible to update these figures, please?
 * citations 136 and 137 "Archived copy" -- can the correct titles of these pages please be added?
 * I think I've managed to fix this. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * suggest checking the English language variation (I see British "centre" but also US "defense")
 * the link for Jane's in citation 155 probably should be moved to an earlier mention (maybe citation 151)?
 * citation 32 (Air Combat Information Group) --> is this the same as citation 62 (Cooper)? If so, I suggest just using a WP:NAMEDREF
 * suggest sorting the Bibliography alphabetically by surname
 * Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * in the Further reading section, "Disconsolate empires: French, British and Belgian military involvement in post-colonial Sub-Saharan Africa": is there an author, year and publisher for this?
 * Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * in the Further reading section, suggest presenting the authors' surnames first for consistency
 * Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * in the Ext links section "Recent German Foreign Ministry Report", suggest changing "recent" to a specific year if possible and adding an archive link as it appears to be a deadlink
 * Done. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * he army's logistics corps [was tasked].. to provide logistic...: is this a quote? If so, it appears to be missing the first quote mark and probably should be attributed in text, with a citation
 * Fixed. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Kabila answered 'We are not going to: I think the MOS prefers double quote marks (suggest checking the whole article for consistency in relation to this, although this is a very minor point)
 * Appears to have been resolved, I think. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * suggest adding a page number for citation 15 "Vanderstraeten 1985"
 * suggest adding a page number for citation # 121 -- Boshoff, The DDR Process
 * citation # 131: "Orbat.com's Concise World Armies 2005" -- is there a url for this?
 * I have to head off for a few hours to attend a course briefing, but might get back on later tonight to assist with some of the more minor aspects. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:37, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I think I have done all I can with the article now. The main issues remain, unfortunately. In this regard, unfortunately the article will need to be demoted unless someone else has the ability and sources to step in. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:49, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have the ability and sources, either, and Buckshot and Indy Beetle have both implied they don't really, either, so we're definitely trending to delist here. Hog Farm Bacon 04:56, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll leave it to the end of next week and list it if nothing has changed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:12, 17 October 2020 (UTC)