Talk:Bugesera invasion

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 16:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

I will begin the review shortly.--Catlemur (talk) 16:34, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

• "The proposed president then requested that Kayibanda form a new government." - What was the name of the president?
  • Dominique Mbonyumutwa, added with some more context.

• "communication was extremely difficult and slow, making coordinated actions very difficult." - Can you rephrase this passage?
  • Revised.

• Why did China support the UNAR?
  • The thinking of the Chinese leadership in regards to their Rwanda policy during this time is not exactly clear. They were certainly looking for ins in this region during the time. They became heavily involved in Burundi in late 1963 and supported the Simba rebellion in the Congo in 1964/196.5 As is stated in the article, UNAR had a number of communists in its ranks and on the whole embraced the rhetoric of anti-imperialism and anti-colonialism, so Communist China would seem a natural ally for them, while the Hutu elite was busy cultivating their relationship with the departing Belgians.

So the communist Chinese government didn't mind the fact that Kigeli was allegedly in charge and Inyezi invasion force called themselves "Armée Royale Rwandaise"? Maybe include a sentence or two about the reasons behind Chinese support into the article.--Catlemur (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

The reasons for the Chinese decision to aid them is not clearly stated by the sources, but one can infer that they thought that an anti-Western monarchy (since Belgium had made enemies of the Rwandan Tutsi elite) would be better for them than a Catholic pro-Belgian republic. They actually gave money directly to Kigeli, so they clearly didn't mind the royal thing. As for the Inyenzi themselves, many actually didn't care to mirror Chinese communism in Rwanda if they had taken over, they just wanted aid in their pursuit to overthrow the Hutu republic (Lemarchand's conclusions). Thus, the Inyenzi-PROC relationship was one of pragmatism.

I see, can you add a sentence briefly describing Lemarchand's conclusions as to why the Chinese aided the Inyezi?

• • Apologies for the confusion, Lemarchand's conclusions were concerning why the Inyenzi embraced Chinese aid, not why the Chinese offered it to begin with. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• Move the wikilink for Tanganyika to the first mention.
  • Done.

• There are instances of both British and American English in the article, EngVar needs to be standardized.
  • Should be Anglicanised (direct quotes exempted).

Favor, favored→favour, favoured.

• Provide translations for the titles of non-English language sources cited in the article.--Catlemur (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Done.

• Link hand-made rifles to Improvised firearm.
  • Done.

• "As they progressed through the country the Inyenzi was joined" - "the Inyenzi were joined" (Inyenzi means cockroaches right?)
  • Done.

• "twelve miles south of the city at Kanzenze Bridge" - convert to km.
  • Conversion provided.

• "with several hundred Tutsis and several Congolese killed" - Were the Congolese mercenaries, allies or full members of the Inyenzi? Perhaps they should be mentioned in the infobox.--Catlemur (talk) 18:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • They were probably more or less full members. The role of the Congolese in the Inyenzi movement is mention in the Background section. Curiously, their participation in the invasion isn't mentioned in the sources until the casualties of the confrontation by the bridge are brought up. This probably emanates from the Rwanda government's dubious claim that a document for an alternative government naming the opposition politicians was found on the body of a dead Congolese. Thus, I wouldn't want to complicate the infobox or make more of this than it should be by including it there. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

• Wikilink World Council of Churches.
  • Done.

• "Speaking to the massacres in Gikongoro"
  • This is grammatically correct, see here.

• "and created a "buffer zone" at the border to Rwanda, forbidding anyone of entering it without authorization." - "and created a "buffer zone" at the border with Rwanda, forbidding anyone from entering it without authorization."
  • Done.

• "his government would do its utmost to clam and pacify ethnic rivalries"
  • Fixed.

• Can you provide translations in parentheses for the French terms being used in the article e.g. coopérants techniques militaires, Armée Royale Rwandaise etc.?--Catlemur (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Translations done.

Only Procureur de la République left.

• • Done.

• The lede and the main body of the article list Inyezi strength at 1,000–7,000, while the infobox states hundreds.
  • That is because the 1,000-7,000 figure includes recruited locals, which the infobox makes allowance for.

• I think at least some of the quotes in the article can be paraphrased. (Optional)--Catlemur (talk) 16:29, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Catlemur: All good? -Indy beetle (talk) 03:19, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Please address the first two comments from this diff. Once this is done, it will be a solid GA.--Catlemur (talk) 16:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

• • @Catlemur: Ok thanks. Should be good now. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:59, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Can you add a sentence briefly describing Lemarchand's conclusions as to why the Chinese aided the Inyezi?--Catlemur (talk) 15:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

• @Catlemur: See above. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:36, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

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: --Catlemur (talk) 17:49, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Claim

This article is hugely problematic, with considerable historical errors. 104.158.214.165 (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it's not. All content is well sourced. If you have alternate sources providing alternate views, please list them instead of throwing POV claims around. Applodion (talk) 23:21, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, strong claims require strong sources. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2023 (UTC)