Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Mozambican War of Independence

Mozambican War of Independence
I've been working on this article for a long time (Oct 12 I started it), and as I'm still fine tuning my capabilities as a historian and a wikipedian, it's been quite a hard slog. References have been hard to come by, but over the past few months I have built them up as I have managed to find them, or pieces of information from them. Very recently, I uncovered an excellent account of the conflict by the United States Marine Corps for the Marine Corps Command and Staff College, which was invaluable for facts relating to how the conflict unfolded. an account of events is now in place (parallels to Vietnam and 1st Indochina war are impressive) as well as sections on related events. Expansion perhaps needed in the latter sections, and the prose may be a little difficult to follow in places. One main issue is linking in the carnation revolution section with the rest. The revolution was both party caused by the conflict, and it resulted in the independence, and I'm not sure if i have worded that particular part as best I could. Anyway, I've just come off the back of a lot of work on it (though only 187 edits to it, I don't think that’s a fair representation! :D) and am very interested in seeing how I did (will probably be picked up on numerous things that I've missed or messed up on, but that's okay!) SGGH 22:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reviews guys, very helpful. I've got a couple of questions about one or two points so will copy them down here and tag my questions next to each one.


 * "Notes" - these are actually "Cites" or "Citations" in your article, not footnotes, would rename I have a note in there also, and many other articles have "notes" as the heading, are you sure I should do this?
 * Actually, it seems like there is some disagreement over this. Don't forget any comments given in a review are merely personal opinion and you are not obliged to entertain them - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The FRELIMO forces are given as "Strength 15,000, Casualties 25,000" This is obviously impossible. Split into military and civilian casualties to avoid this contradiction, if that is what accounts for the difference the first note states that 15'000 was the strength at the largest point, with 25'000 the total casualties. Frelimo received a constant flow of recruits, particularly in the later stages as their 'hearts and minds' campaign bore fruit
 * I don't like this way of numbering, since you are given figures from two different time periods in that case. Strength and casualty figures should be given from the same time period, preferably at the peak of the conflict, IMO -PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, unfortunaly its all I've been able to find, I will keep a look out though!
 * A number of the references used seem questionable (Britannica? Encarta?  Amazon?  Wikipedia?!); see WP:MILHIST.  not sure abotu the amazon one, have removed it, embarasingly I don't remember why it was there it doesnt site to anything. The wikipedia ref was there because it was info from another article on here, but unfortunatly that article didnt cite an external reference for it so I am a bit stumped as to what to do here? and the encyclopaedia britannica was just used to get some background info on Frelimo
 * Much of the "Background to the conflict" section is entirely uncited. unfortunatly much of the background information came from wikipedia articles on the history of mozambique, which was uncited, but I can easily supplement with citable material, will do so shortly
 * "Frelimo lodged a protest with the United Nations about the project, and much foreign financial support was withdrawn" Was this definitely causative? It would be unlike the UN to influence foreign funding ont he say-so of a guerilla group. those two are not particulatly linked, just a badly worded sentence, have attempted to fix
 * Better now, thanks - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please continue with your opinions! I have implemented a number of them, and will work on the others shortly, many thanks. SGGH 12:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tried to write a lead paragraph, but I confess I'm not too sure what I should put into it, I would appreciate some help in this area particularly. SGGH 14:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've kept at it but am not very happy with it, I would appreciate some help. SGGH 14:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw that you had implemented many of my suggestions, so thank you. I think the article is looking in great shape - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, they were all excellent, I wish I could have implemented them further. Please give me any other ideas you have. SGGH 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin
Quite nice, but a number of points that could still use some work: Keep up the good work! Kirill Lokshin 04:06, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Much of the "Background to the conflict" section is entirely uncited.
 * "The" should generally be omitted from section names.
 * Footnotes should be placed after punctuation, not before it.
 * The "See also" section should be eliminated.
 * A number of the references used seem questionable (Britannica? Encarta?  Amazon?  Wikipedia?!); see WP:MILHIST.
 * The notes should probably include page numbers, no?
 * "Bibliography" should be renamed to "Further reading".
 * The lead should be expanded to two/three paragraphs.

PocklingtonDan
Cheers - PocklingtonDan (talk) 07:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Frelimo (Frente de Libertação de Moçambique)" - acronyms are conventionally capitalised
 * "While from a military standpoint the Portuguese held the upper hand during the conflict with guerrilla forces, due to a coup d'état in Portugal, Mozambique succeeded in achieving independence on June 25, 1975, after 470 years as a Portuguese colony." Too long. Change to "From a military standpoint the Portuguese regular army held the upper hand during the conflict against the Mozambique guerrilla forces. However, due to a coup d'état in Portugal, Mozambique succeeded in achieving independence on June 25, 1975, after 470 years as a Portuguese colony."
 * Your lead is too short, expand to 2-3 paras, summarising the rest of the article contents
 * The FRELIMO forces are given as "Strength 15,000, Casualties 25,000" This is obviously impossible. Split into military and civilian casualties to avoid this contradiction, if that is what accounts for the difference
 * Entire article needs many, many more cites
 * "with the superior Royal Navy" - there are or have been lots of Royal Navys, would disambig, rephrasing to "with the superior British Royal Navy"
 * "During the 19th century, in an attempt to avoid a naval conflict with the superior Royal Navy, Portugal adjusted the borders of her colony and the modern nation of Mozambique was created" I don't understand how adjusting borders avoids conflict with the navy. Please explain this in the article.
 * "resisted encroachment by the European Power" Think you mean "Powers" plural.
 * The infobox mentions "Portuguese mistreatments of the colony" as a cassus belli, but the article mentions only "disproportionate number of white Portuguese with well paid careers compared to the poverty of the majority of the African population" which doesn't seem deliberate mistreatment so much as inevitablility of the European workers probably being more highly trained, being concentrated in urban areas, and doing different jobs.
 * "Originally, the United States offered support to the nationalist groups in Africa" Why did it do this? This could be explained.
 * "The nationalist groups in Mozambique, like those across Africa during the period, received training an equipment from the Soviet Union[4]." Think it is worth linking to ana rticle on this phenomenon if it exists, these were known as proxy wars f the cold war.
 * "At the war's outset, Frelimo had little hope for a military victory, with a mere 7000 combatants against a far larger Portuguese force. Its hope instead lay in a war of attrition " This is nonsensical - a war of attrition is specifically a war in which the side with the most troops wins. I don't think you mean of war of attrition.
 * It is worth indicating early on the percentage or degree of support for the guerillas, especially since you mention there were more native troops in the pro-Portuguese army than with the guerillas.
 * "the attackers took full advantage of the monsoon season in order to evade pursuit" I think this needs explaining. How does this aid the insurgents? because the heavier vehicles of the portuguese regular army get bogged down? Whatever the reason, it shuold be explained
 * "the insurgents were free to travel through the indigenous population" How well received were they? Seizure of foods etc fro indigenous populations by guerillas is very common historically. Did the indigenous population harbour them through support or out of fear?
 * "High calibre machine guns" - aren't these normally called "large calibre" rather than "high calbire"? High calibre means good, large calibre means big bullets
 * "Frelimo lodged a protest with the United Nations about the project, and much foreign financial support was withdrawn" Was this definitely causative? It would be unlike the UN to influence foreign funding ont he say-so of a guerilla group.
 * "Mine psychosis " What is mine psychosis? Its not wikilinked or expained.
 * "Portuguese sponsered " should be "Portuguese-sponsored "
 * " Carnation Revolution" - mentioned several times without being explained
 * "An attack which illustrated the role of the Mozambican conflict in this unrest was the attack on the Portuguese ship Niassa" - clumsy, change to "The attack on the Portuguese ship Niassa illustrated the role of the Mozambican conflict in this unrest "
 * "Notes" - these are actually "Cites" or "Citations" in your article, not footnotes, would rename
 * According to the MoS, the section name should be "Notes" or "Footnotes", either way. (They are, of course, footnotes, just not discursive ones; c.f. WP:FOOTNOTE.) Kirill Lokshin 13:21, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Worth reading tips. --  FayssalF  - Wiki me up ®  15:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not really too interested in stated policy, generally, since it was written by A.N.Other editor at some point and is fallible. In this case, it causes problems do call it notes since it fails to differntiate between plain citations and narrative asides. A person might be interested in reading the one type and not the other. See Roman-Spartan War for an excellent way of distringuishing the two that is far better than simply lumping everything under a "Notes" header, regardless of whether the latter is "official" policy - PocklingtonDan (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case, though, the distinction seems moot, since there aren't any content notes; there's no real point in renaming the existing section to "Citations" if you're not intending to introduce a different section containing "Notes".
 * (It's worth pointing out, of course, that the style used in Roman-Spartan War is by no means the preferred method of structuring the article; it's just as valid—and rather more common—to combine both types of notes in a single section.) Kirill Lokshin 19:49, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't agree with the R-S War articles method, but thats just me, such a thick and heavy notes section may as well be a normal section of the article. With only one none-citation note in the Mozambique War article, I am thinking it might be okay the way it is? SGGH 22:02, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

FayssalF
I must congratulate you first for your dedication. I remember your request regarding a book sitting in the New York Public Library a while ago. I must note that the article uses almost exclusively the book in question for citations and notes. Relying the edition of an important and large article on one book is not appropriate. --  Szvest   -  Wiki me up ®  13:07, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, the majority of the details don't come from that book, I only used a couple, and one of those was cited in another work and contained the info I needed. If you're refering to the report by the War College of the USMC by 'Westfall, William C., Jr., Major' I know I am overly reliant, but due to the difficulty I had finding sources unfortunatly I didn't have much choice, and I've tried to only get specific facts from it, rather than impressions and ideas of the author himself. SGGH 13:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Rmky87
Please fix the naked URLs. They look absolutely gross with a two-column format.--Rmky87 03:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Naked URL's? SGGH 12:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I've done what I think you meant, making sure all the citations aren't straight URLs? SGGH 12:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much. Word to the wise: the FAC commentators don't like it when you don't include retrieval dates.--Rmky87 02:44, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The date I found it? I can do that, I think SGGH 12:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Do you think the article could make GA? SGGH 19:04, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you have a better chance if the retrieval date thing is taken care of. Also, not only is Encarta, which is another encyclopedia, cited, but it is not a named ref. Named refs look like this: or which means that when you want to reuse a reference, you just type or . Your chances of making GA as is are much higher than your chances of making FA as is.


 * Oh, and did you know that Mozambique-Insurgency Against Portugal, 1963-1975 is available online?


 * Takes second look at article*


 * Oh, I see that's already in External links. If I were you, I would take that link of there and incorporate it into the Notes section. The first time I saw that, I thought I was looking at a book with no ISBN. Or page numbers. I'd work on these things before even considering going through GAN.--Rmky87 21:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * have name refed the encarta links and moved that book into refs section as advised. SGGH

It has made GA status. thanks for your helps guys! SGGH 22:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)