Talk:Politics of Botswana/GA1
GA Review
[edit]The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs)
Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 19:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll take this review; it will be used in the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive. Initial impressions are positive. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria
- Is it well written?
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch,
fiction, and list incorporation:
- A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
- Is it verifiable with no original research?
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
- C. It contains no original research:
- D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
- At least a substantial proportion of sources have been spot-checked and verified:
- A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
- Is it broad in its coverage?
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
- A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
- Is it neutral?
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
- Is it stable?
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
- Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
- A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
- Overall:
- Pass or Fail:
- Pass or Fail:
Spotchecks
[edit]A spotcheck of ten randomly chosen citation numbers from this version of the article.
- 21 good 4x
- 41 good, although a paragraph relying on a single citation may be WP:UNDUE.
- How critical is this? Ideally I wouldn't want to remove otherwise verifiable information if it's not heavily contested.
- 48 mostly good, but the source attributes an importance to regional and not just international diplomacy that doesn't come through in the article, and it notes informal relations with apartheid South Africa.
- I specified "formal" relations. What changes are you hoping for regarding regional/international diplomacy? Both are covered to some extent.
- 13 I don't see where "became a major political issue as its severity became apparent in the 1990s" is supported in the text
- Removed.
- 10 good
- 5 good
- 22 good 5x
- 2 good 2x
- 4 good 2x
- 25 good
Out of 19 individual citations checked, only a small proportion have problems. Therefore, source spotcheck 
passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
General comments
[edit]- Nominator is the primary author. As on a first inspection, there only appear to be minor issues with prose/MOS compliance, I'll do the source spotcheck first (above) to get it out of the way. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
- Which WP:ENGVAR does this article use? It seems to follow neither BrE, CwE or AmE.
- I added a BrE template and hopefully it lines up with that now.
- Prose comments
- Lead is generally good, but has a habit of saying "in Botswana" too often; I think we can take that for granted. The last paragraph is more stop-start than the others, so sentences could be combined.
- Trimmed a few.
- "The United Kingdom began involvement in the region in the 1820s" this is somewhat vague; the source says that British influence had been active since the 1920s, not that the UK was actively involved. You may also want to link United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
- Reworded and linked.
- "The Botswana National Front (BNF) was founded by Kenneth Koma as a left-wing party, and it became the opposition party in the 1969 general election." This sentence is somewhat of a non-sequitur with what comes before or after; you may want to move it to the end for flow reasons.
- Done.
- "the creation of the Botswana Defence Force in 1977" you may want to say that this is the country's military
- Added.
- "were identified by them as the Big Five whom they opposed." the passive voice is unhelpful, especially combined with the semi-unclear "they/them" use.
- Reworded
- "Although an appeal to the courts" for what?
- Clarified.
- "The legislature is responsible for serving as a check on the power of the executive. The legislature has little power to limit the actions of the executive branch, leading to concerns that it is unable to check executive power." I think this could be very easily simplified.
- Done.
- The "Legislative branch" subsection contains a hatnote to Parliament of Botswana, but does not actually define what that is, meaning that it is unclear what "parliament" means later in the article.
- Replaced all uses of "parliament" with "National Assembly", which is the actual relevant body in each case.
- "There are currently eight judges" "currently" is sourced to a thirteen-year-old reference.
- Removed both instances of "currently"
- The "Political parties" and "Elections" sections could be made subsections of the "National government" section. I would also place the "Policy issues" section before the "Human rights" section.
- I moved the policy issues and human rights sections. I'd rather not move political parties and elections under national government since they're not solely national institutions.
- "In 2019, the Botswana National Front, the Botswana Congress Party, the Botswana Movement for Democracy, and the Botswana People's Party joined together as the Umbrella for Democratic Change." The UDC's article, which itself dates from 2014, says it began in 2012, so I think that 2019 date might need some adjusting/qualifying.
- Fixed with new sources.
- "are shaped by collectivist traditions such as botho rather than individualist traditions" could use some explanation/example.
- I specified "botho philosophy" instead of just "botho". Is there anything specific I should add?
- "As South Africa liberalised, Botswana's primary foreign policy concern became" a timeframe would be nice.
- Added.
- "Botswana practiced realpolitik foreign policy" is the grammar correct here? is an "a" needed between practiced and realpolitik? unsure.
- I suspect that this is one of those circumstances where having an article is correct regardless, so I added it.
Putting this on hold while the above (minor) issues are sorted out. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- AirshipJungleman29, I've replied to everything above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.