Talk:Chilembwe uprising

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anti-war (Rated GA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anti-war, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the anti-war movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Africa / Malawi (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Malawi (marked as High-importance).
 
WikiProject Colonialism (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colonialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Colonialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject British Empire
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject British Empire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of British Empire on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chilembwe uprising/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 12:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria


Looks pretty good overall. Will note comments as I read through. Copy-edited a bit myself.

Thank you very much! I've made some changes, some against your edits - please let me know if you feel strongly about any of them. I've tried to avoid the use of "According to Historian X" in the main text, per the comments of another user, by the way.Brigade Piron (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    "with over 900 pupils"—in total or in each school?
    We still don't seem to have dealt with this? Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    Fixed now. Brigade Piron (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
    "On 24 January, he sent a letter to the German governor" On 24 January 1915, we mean? But the rebellion was already underway, right? Why not put this later? Green tickY - I have moved this down a section.
    Why not mention earlier that the white managers burned Chilembwe's church down in November 1913? I think this deserves to be mentioned earlier and more prominently. Green tickY
    Isn't Ranald a man's name? I'd check whether or not this really was a woman. - The book is, unfortunately, back at the library, so it may be a month or so before I can see it again. I've changed it to "dinner guests" which I hope is OK in the meantime?
    That does fine. Cliftonian (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    "Jonathon" shouldn't this be Jonathan? Green tickY - I think, in this context, that either is OK, but I've changed it to the more common "-an" ending anyway.
    "The disaffected Mlanje or Zomba tribes" Who? We haven't mentioned these people before. Green tickY - I have removed the "disaffected" which I agree makes them sound more important to this than they were; but I don't think they are important enough here to merit too much attention.
    We say that Chinyama didn't actually join the rebellion, but then say that he was later seen as part of it. What actually happened with him? ? - I've actually no idea. Once his non-involvement has been noted, the sources don't seem to say. I guess he didn't do anything, but said he would have.
    For GA I don't think this is that pertinent, so I'll get it go, but for FAC I would try to make this clearer. Cliftonian (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    "After independence, Chilembwe's death was commemorated by an annual holiday"—immediately after independence in 1964, or later? is it a holiday now? ? - will try to check. The source doesn't mention.
    Yes it does. From 1995. Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    "Chilembwe's portrait was also added to the national currency, and has also featured on Malawian stamps" Again, when? More recently I believe, as the original stuff tended to have the President-for-Life Hastings Banda on it, unless I am very much mistaken. Red XN - I'm afraid the source doesn't say. Are you sure that this is important though, in an article of this scope? I agree that on the Malawian kwacha article this would be important, but I'm not sure its so key here?
    I feel it would be important to mention if Banda, who was president for three decades, put Chilembwe above himself in the nationalist narrative by putting him on the money. As it happens Banda put himself on the money instead. Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    "Chilembwe was symbol, legitimizing myth, instrument and propaganda"—would you mind checking the source for this again? This quote doesn't seem grammatically correct to me.Green tickY - this is what it says, it does sound a bit odd at first, but it does make grammatical sense.
    Have dealt with this. Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    "Chilembwe's speech of 28 January" don't we mean 23 January? Green tickY - well spotted!
    Is there any reason we capitalise "Thangata" the first time we use it, but not thereafter? Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    "It is notable, however,"—avoid this kind of thing, borders on peacocking.Green tickY
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:
    No inline citation for usage of forced labour. ? - Can you be more specific?
    "Increasingly, the plantations were also forced to rely on a system of forced labour or corvée, known locally at the thangata." (end of second paragraph of the background section) has no inline citation Cliftonian (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Green tickY - done!
    No citation for influence by John Brown and Booker T. Washington.Green tickY
    First paragraph under "Preparations" has no inline citation. Green tickY
    No inline citation at end of first paragraph of "Attack on the Livingstone Bruce Plantation".Green tickY
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    We mention Livingstone got decapitated in his bedroom, but what happened to his wife? They just let her go? Red XN - I think that's covered in the next phrase. I can make it clearer though?
    I would prefer to make this clearer with just a couple words, as it's important to immediately make clear that they were specifically going for Livingstone and not just killing everybody (as many, judging from the context, would assume). I have had a go at this myself, I hope this is okay with you. Cliftonian (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely, I've also added a bit to specify this in the important of Magomero as a target. Brigade Piron (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. B. Focused:
  2. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    The article seems slightly skewed in favour of the "liberation history" narrative. ? Can you identify some instances of this more specifically? I've consciously tried to avoid it, but it is possible some has got through... The "analysis" section was included as an attempt to remove any analysis from the main article at all.
    Eh, on reflection I actually think it's all right. Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  3. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  4. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
    Maybe use this image of a modern banknote with Chilembwe on it? In the lead image, do we know who the white guy with Chilembwe is? ? - I'd prefer to use that article in the "In later culture" section, but I certainly agree it is worth including. I do worry about the copyright data on that file, though. May I re-enstate the other Shire Highland picture?
    If you really want to by all means, but I don't think it adds much. (It's Shire Highlands, not Shire Highland.) Cliftonian (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
    Forget about the bank note, you're right, bank notes are copyrighted in Malawi. Cliftonian (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  5. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Passing now, very well done. A really fine article. Cliftonian (talk) 05:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Thank you! Brigade Piron (talk) 09:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

CE[edit]

  • Removed some duplicated citations and combined others where contiguous, since the narrative didn't seem contentious. If this is undesirable, they can be put back using the edit revert.
  • I was a little disappointed to read the term "blacks" though, wouldn't it be better to use the term "people" or "black people" when the narrative needs to distinguish between locals and invaders?Keith-264 (talk) 07:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much for the help Keith. I disagree however that there is any problem with the term "blacks" to describe black people in a more concise way—just as we might say "Jews" rather than the more cumbersome "Jewish people", or "Swedes" instead of "Swedish people". In any case the article also uses the term "whites", so this would presumably also have to be changed? Cliftonian (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)