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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Countries, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of countries 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.
This subject is featured in the Outline of Rwanda, which is incomplete and needs further development. That page, along with the other outlines on Wikipedia, is part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge, which also serves as the table of contents or site map of Wikipedia.
I have copied two paragaphs of the history section of this article across to Banyarwanda, with this diff. I will be modifying that text to adapt it to the specific topic, but noting the copy here per WP:COPYWITHIN. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Amnesty International is also critical, saying that genocide ideology laws have been used to "silence dissent, including criticisms of the ruling RPF party and demands for justice for RPF war crimes" and links to footnote NO. 71, Amnesty International 2010.
But there's no link to the actual source, only one similar is Amnesty International (2012). "Human Rights in Republic of Rwanda". Retrieved 2014-04-16., but the year doesn't match.
And I also can't found the actual quote "silence dissent, including criticisms of the ruling RPF party and demands for justice for RPF war crimes" within the 2012 article.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
@Jarodalien: it appears that the original reference, pointing to the 2010 Amnesty report was at some point replaced by the 2012 version, which of course had different text. I've restored the previous one and clarified in the text that the report was from 2010. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
@Amakuru:，I have found that article myselft using google just about 48 hours ago, just doesn't get the time to fix it here, because I'm translating this article to zh.wikipedia.org, thank you.
But there's one more problem I didn't found solution about the education section, there's one line I can't found the source, and I add  already.--Jarodalien (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Added Military Paragraph to Government and Politics Section
Hi, since this is an FA class article I wanted to make it clear that I just added a paragraph on the country's military to the Government section. There was nothing on it before but there was a link at the top of the section to the military's wiki page as the main article reference.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
@Monopoly31121993: apologies I've only just noticed this, I've not been too active on WP recently, but thanks for the addition of the military paragraph. — Amakuru (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
I've noticed that the sport section, the education section and parts of the health section of the article have some sourcing and POV/balance issues. In the sport section, there's what seems like a disproportionate focus on cricket and the cricket material lacks citations. In the education section, the detail about XO-XS laptops seems a bit disproportionate given the relatively short length of the section as a whole. In the health section, there's the passage "45 percent of women between the ages of 15 to 49, use family planning methods. This comes as no surprise as Rwanda women on average, give birth to 4.6 children throughout their lifetime (RDHS 2010)". "This comes as no surprise" doesn't sound that encyclopedic, and the citation needs to be replaced with a full footnote reference. Later in the section, there's a sub-heading "Millennium Development Goal 6", but what MDG6 is isn't explained. There may well be other issues with the article - I just spotted these in a quick scan when I was updating material about the University of Rwanda - but I'm concerned that these alone threaten the article's FA status. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi there @Cordless Larry: I should apologise here, because I've been aware of the issues you mention for a little while now, and it has been on my to-do list to fix them, but I haven't had the time yet. There is some vaguely useful content in the newly added material in the sport and health sections, which is why I've not yet removed it altogether, but as you say it's too long, and does need much more strict sourcing and balancing with respect to other content. Since you've now raised the issue here, my temptation is in the short term to largely take these sections back to how they were at the time FA was attained in 2012 (they are not fast moving topics, so I think that's reasonable), and then to come back to them in the near future when I have some time to look into the issue properly. Would that work for you? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:48, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, Amakuru, as long as care is taken not to remove any sourced, useful additions (or at least to make sure they are added back in again at a future point). It's probably worth mentioning cricket, but not with the current level of detail, and I would argue that other sports are of at least equal prominence and should be covered (e.g. cycling - see Tour of Rwanda, Adrien Niyonshuti, Rising from Ashes, etc.). Cordless Larry (talk) 10:52, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
@Cordless Larry: Yes, that's true. In that case let me try to find some time - maybe at the weekend - to do a bit more of a thorough job of pulling together a decent balanced sport section. I'll leave it up to you if you'd rather leave the current content there in the mean time, or to remove it until I'm able to do that task. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I'll try to trim back and source the cricket material for now, and perhaps I might be able to help you improve the section further in the near future. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, that's done and I've also added some material on cycling. As a result, there's probably now too much emphasis on cycling, but I think the answer is to add more detail about other sports rather than cut the cycling and cricket material. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
I think the whole of the sport section is now referenced. Whether it features a suitable balance of coverage between different sports is still up for debate, but it's a start. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
excellent, thank you for your work there. It looks good and balanced from a quick read through! — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru. I think it needs more coverage of athletics and Paralympic sports since they're identified as two of the biggest sports in the country. It could also do with more coverage of women's sport because it's all a bit male-dominated at present. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:33, 9 April 2015 (UTC)