Talk:Battle of Rejaf

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Indy beetle (talk · contribs) 21:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Comments

A very well developed article! Let's get to it, shall we?

• In the infobox, you have Chaltin listed as a commander and linked as "Commandant Chaltin". It would be best to include his full name or something like his first initial. (As a note: older sources do have a tenancy to list military officers/explorers by their title and last name only.)

• Done.

• "After a wave of new funding from the Belgian government in 1896[...]" This is brought up in the lead, but not made explicit in the article. In the event this is true, it would benefit the infobox to add "Supported by: Belgium" below the Congo Free State under "Belligerents".

• I've added the details to the Origins section, but I believe the funding was not given explicitly for the purpose of the expedition. Should I still make the change to the infobox?
  • If that's the case, then you can leave it as it is.

• "The rebels, numbering two-thousand, had established a two-mile line across a range of hills, giving them a tactical and numerical advantage over Chaltin's eight-hundred men." A certain form of deployment generally doesn't give one side a numerical advantage, one simply possesses a numerical advantage by virtue of numbers. Please revise.

• Absolutely right. I've reworked that poorly arranged sentence.

• The lead could better summarize the later parts of the article. It might be better to split up some of the last sentence here ("In the battle that ensued, Chaltin defeated the rebels, and pursued them back towards and through the town until they scattered to the north.") and add a bit more detail on the engagement(s). One or two additional sentences would suffice. Also, one or two sentences on that summarize info from the "Aftermath" section should be included.

• Done.

• "Chaltin ordered his artillery to fire on the enemy[...]" "and causing the enemy to falter." The phrase "the enemy" is rather POV. The Mahdists were certainly "Chaltin's enemy" or the "Congolese's enemy", but are not our enemy or the enemy. Please revise these parts and use words like "rebels", "Mahdists", the "Sudanese", or otherwise factual or NPOV names instead. I see you are using Charles de Kavanagh Boulger as your main source for the "Battle" section. It's important to keep in mind that sources from that era (1800s-1950s) dealing with Africa, and particularly the Congo, tend to have a bias that favors the Europeans. This often will be manifested in assertions of white individuals' "genius" or "courage" or disdainful or patronizing attitudes expressed towards "sly" Arabs and "simple" and "docile" Africans/blacks/natives/Negroes/savages. Still, when wielded with a bit of caution, they can still be used as reliable sources, and the same goes for this article. So for example, when this article says that the Free State troops "blasted several shells into the Mahdists' ranks", it's probably best to swap out the dramatic word "blasted" for something more NPOV or with fewer connotations like "fired", "shot", etc. Other than those, I think the article would still be suitable for a GA label, but I would like to stress the importance of taking things like "extremely light" losses for the European-aligned force with a grain of salt.

• Excellent point. I've made the language more neutral. Immense thanks for taking the time to give a thorough and thoughtful review, I really appreciate it. Washoe the Wise (talk) 06:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Looks good. I'm happy to pass the article. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:30, 20 February 2017 (UTC)