Talk:Battle of Quifangondo

Death Road

The source I've cited indicates that "Nshila wa Lufu" literally means "Death Road", a phrase that subsequent to this battle, has become associated with Quifangondo. Please discuss here if you feel otherwise. Socrates2008 (Talk) 21:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Casualty numbers incomplete

The MPLA numbers are missing, as are references for the numbers currently cited. Socrates2008 (Talk) 09:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Angolan decolonisation conflict 1974/75

Creating a separate 74-75 phase in the Angolan conflict is an artificial academic construct by one author, against the norm followed by other historians who correctly distitingush between two phases: the Angolan War of Independence and the Angolan civil war. It is certainly not for the lede, as it only confuses readers for two reasons:

• 1. the term "decolonisation" is historically associated with the struggles for independence, so in this case, the Angolan War of Independence;
• 2. the text clearly says it is "the first battle in the Angolan Civil War", also identified as such in the infobox as "Part of The Angolan Civil War".

It is one or the other, it can't be both. Unfortunately the editor who made this change keeps repeating it elsewhere. Regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:13, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Catlemur (talk · contribs) 21:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I will begin the review tomorrow.--Catlemur (talk) 21:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

If the information is already mentioned and referenced in the main body of the article, you don't have to duplicate the refs in the infobox. E.g. Santos e Castro being a commander in the battle.

Fixed!

Same goes for the lede.

Fixed!

"a hill which overlooked the Luanda highway and only five kilometres from Quifangondo." - Clarify this sentence.

Added “located” before “only five kilometers from Quifangondo”.

Use the convert template to convert km distances into miles.

This might seem nitpicky but article is written using South African and Commonwealth spellings, orthography, and units, as this is the dialect used in all but two of the primary sources (Tucker and Stockwell). Is the conversion to miles really necessary?

The conversion is for the convenience of readers from around the globe. I've been requested to do the same when I nominated an article of mine for GAN in the past.--Catlemur (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

You mention that a number of Zairean troops were injured in the battle, but the same isn't done in the infobox.

Fixed!

Add a single sentence at the end of the article, stating that the war went on because FALA continued to resist until 2002.--Catlemur (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Fixed!

Guimaraes, Fernando Andresen - Is Andressen a first name?

I think Fernando is, but since the author’s name is cited as such in the source material I included it verbatim. Granted, I don’t know anything about Lusophone naming conventions.

James III, W. Martin (2011) and James, W. Martin (2011) - Is this the same person? If so correct it.

Yes, it is the same person but a formatting error occurs every time I add the “III” to the second source in my citations, probably because the format can’t differentiate between the two sources since they were both written by the same author in the same year.

Does this qualify as a last stand battle?

No, and that category has been removed.

Thanks for all your helpful commentary and input, @Catlemur:! --Katangais (talk) 00:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Comment If you have two different sources by the same author in the same year, the convention is to append a letter after the year, for example changing the year field to '2011a' or '2011b' so that the sfns work. Kges1901 (talk) 00:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

The second James ref was not needed after all.--Catlemur (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

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:

   Well done.--Catlemur (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)