Talk:Zanzibar Revolution/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

On first glance, this looks very good. I expect a pass. A few things:

Introduction

This is a personal preference: I know there are a group of Infobox haters on Wikipedia. And I have nothing wrong with that. However, is it possible that you add one? ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added an infobox. I left out the strengths of the forces as I only have figures for Okello's men (which is still an estimate) and the casualties as there were relatively few in the actual fighting (I have not found any figures for Okello's casualties) but most were in the massacre afterwards (estimates for which vary widely). If I find any more info I will, of course, expand this - Dumelow (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I still think you should add the estimate for Okello's men and the caualties - some information is better than none. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK now done - Dumelow (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The revolution occurred early on the morning of 12 January 1964 when the revolutionaries overran the country's police force and took their weaponry before proceeding to Zanzibar Town and overthrowing the Sultan and government." - I think this should probably be mentioned first, ahead of the motives. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the lead, hopefully for the better - Dumelow (talk) 10:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing this article. I agree with what you say and will get on it as soon as possible (bit busy at the moment). Many thanks- Dumelow (talk) 08:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm not done reviewing, I just went to bed! On another point, I think the map of Zanzibar should go in the infobox and an image of Karume or Abdullah should go in its place at the Origins section. I'll do some looking myself. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:27, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I personally prefer the map where it is, with the section that explains where Zanzibar is. I could not find any PD images relevant to the revolution but perhaps another fair use image may be found to be applicable - Dumelow (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Instead the communist powers of China, East Germany and the USSR gained influence by recognising the country and sending advisors to its government." - I'm sorry, but what influence did they gain? Also, after instead needs a comma. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:37, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~::Good catch, there's nothing that states that they directly influenced Zanzibar. I have changed this to read "sought to gain influence" - Dumelow (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I was not happy with this and changed it again. Hopefully it is better now - Dumelow (talk) 22:38, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Origins

"Prior the revolution the country was governed as a constitutional monarchy under Sultan Jamshid bin Abdullah who was liked by the majority of population." Priar to the revolution? ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, now done - Dumelow (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Zanzibar had been a part of the British Empire and during the process of decolonisation was allowed some self-governance." Other than elections, anything specific? If not I suggest merging the next too lines to form something along the lines of "Zanzibar had been a part of the British Empire, and during the process of decolonisation British authorities drew constituencies, and held elections held 1961." ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:07, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that sounds good. Done - Dumelow (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Despite winning a majority of the vote, the ASP, led by Abeid Amani Karume, did not win the majority of seats." - I'm assuming this refers to the previos election. This should be made a tad clearer. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have, hopefully, clarified this now - Dumelow (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The ZNP/ZPPP coalition won the next election in July 1963 again, despite the ASP gaining 54% of the vote, and set about strengthening their power still further.[3][5] The ASP gained just 13 of the 31 seats in the parliament." - A bit messy. I think the amount of the vote the ASP received and number of seats should be combined in a seperate sentence. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now combined and a few prose changes made - Dumelow (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The revolution

"Abdulrahman Muhammad Babu, the leader of the Umma Party was also absent, being in Dar es Salaam at the time of the revolution." - seems out of place ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:22, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Made a few changes to this section, hopefully flows a little better now - Dumelow (talk) 17:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Following the revolution..." - Personal preference again, ignore if you want, but I think this entire paragraph belongs in the next section. Are you sure absolutely nothing more is available on the revolution itself? Check out 1964 Gabon coup d'etat for what I mean - and this coup wasn't even successful! ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah ideally it would be with the aftermath section as it does not deal with the revolution itself. However details are very sketchy of the actual events of the revolution with the official Zanzibar government version not being trustworthy. The only other source I can find is a book on the revolution by Okello which has been reviewed as unreliable by the African Studies Review Journal. Those really are the only actual facts that I can find on the event, sorry - Dumelow (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the African Studies Review Journal state exactly what is unreliable about it? what facts it overlooked? ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:26, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It just says unreliable and that Okello was egotistical and mentally unstable. The review is here if you want it. It is primarily a review of another source I was considering (Revolution in Zanzibar: An American's Cold War Tale by Don Petterson) but it is pretty damning of that as well. The African Studies review is the only book review of it that I have been able to find and is published by the Department of Anthropology at the University of Massachusetts. Cheers - Dumelow (talk) 00:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you mention what he said he was doing during the revolution, while saying that he was mentally unstable? For example 1964 Gabon mentions how Paul Yembit claimed that he called for French intervention while rebels held Leon M'ba hostage, when he was in reality doing some campaigning. Really, no more news reports either? ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good compromise. Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the book and have been unable to find it for a reasonable price, but if I can get hold of a copy in the future then I will certainly add relevant information to the article. As to the news articles, the only online source I have been able to find is the NYT stuff. Unfortunately I do not have a subscription to their full archive and can only read the first paragraph of any article. If a NYT subscriber could be found then more information on the actual revolution may be available from there. I should add that this is not my main area of expertise on Wikipedia (that is historical British civil engineers!) but I came to this in a roundabout way from the Anglo-Zanzibar War which I have edited extensively. I therefore do not have many relevant offline sources to hand. Thanks for your help thus far and for any further advice you can offer - Dumelow (talk) 23:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know User:Nishkid64 has access to a bunch of newspaper archives - ask him. I won't fail this because the article could be expanded a bit, though I do imagine you will be sending this through FAC and I just want to prep you for that. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, I will head over to his talk page and ask him - Dumelow (talk) 00:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(arbitrary break)Thanks to some pdfs of the articles that User:Nishkid64 sent me I have expanded the info on the revolution and moved the "following the revolution..." bit to the aftermath. Hopefully the article is a bit more complete now - Dumelow (talk) 21:44, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath

"After the confused events of 12 January a temporary government was set up by the ASP and Umma Party" - Confused events? Why not just revolution? ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:24, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See next bullet - Dumelow (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"This took the name of the Revolutionary Council and Karume, the leader of the ASP, was named President with Babu, leader of the Umma Party, as his Minister of External Affairs." A bit long. I think it would sound better as "This took the name of the Revolutionary Council and Karume, the leader of the ASP, was named President. Babu, leader of the Umma Party, was named his Minister of External Affairs." Also, why do you restate that Karume was the leader of the ASP when it said that in the "Origins" section? Seem a bit redundant ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten this bit and the sentence mentioned above, moving some parts to different paragraphs and making other changes, and hopefully it is better now - Dumelow (talk) 13:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I probably messed up the refs when copyediting the senteces following "Following the revolution..." Please fix these if I did. ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The New York Times ran with a figure of 2,000–4,000 deaths." - is this really that important? What makes this more notable than figures from other news agencies? ~one of many editorofthewikis ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:20, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not. It is the only number that I have seen quoted in (reliable) news articles so I added it for comparison with the widely varying estimates. i thought it might be useful to see how the western press assessed the casualty figures coming out of Zanzibar. I will ltake a look for some more figures from other sources to see if I can improve this bit - Dumelow (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign reaction

"British military forces in Kenya were made aware of the revolution at 4.45 am on 12 January and were put on 15 minute standby to conduct an assault on Zanzibar's airfield in light of a request for assistance from the Sultan." - this needs commas or needs to be broken up. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should read a bit better now - Dumelow (talk) 12:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overreffing in first paragraph. You do NOT need a ref every sentence. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 05:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, must be a bad habit I have developed. I have removed instances which I think are overreffed from the entire section. Thanks - Dumelow (talk) 12:37, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The USS Manley evacuated the US citizens on 13 January." - evacuated isn't the right word. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 17:00, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote that part - Dumelow (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Western Powers were still concerned by the possibility of a communist state emerging. In February the British Defence and Overseas Policy Committee said that whilst British commercial interests in Zanzibar were "minute" and the revolution by itself was "not important" the possibility of intervention must be maintained as Zanzibar could as a centre for the promotion of communism in Africa much like Cuba in the Americas." - too long. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed (my sentence there made no sense anyway!) - Dumelow (talk) 23:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

British military response

"The forces were to land by parachute and helicopter and take first Unguja and then Pemba in the largest British airborne and amphibious operation since the Suez Crisis." - do you mean "first take?" ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 21:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Poor wording on my part. I have rewritten that part to remove it - Dumelow (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"As the situation developed a new plan was designed, known as Operation Boris this would have involved a unit of paratroopers flying out from Kenyan airfields to land on the island." - unclear. Is this supposed to be two sentences? ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should read better now - Dumelow (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

All urls need accessdates. ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 14:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed - can't believe I missed that! - Dumelow (talk) 15:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Passing. Congratualations! ~the editorofthewiki ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 18:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for a thorough review of the article which has helped it to improve greatly. Next stop: A class! - Dumelow (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forced marriages? They are not mentioned here, but how big an issue were they?

when I google "zanzibar forced marriages" I get 64K hits, presumably related to the revolutionaries forcibly marrying women of Arab and Shirazi descent. The current article makes no mention of this practice in the early post-revolutionary period. Can somebody more knowledgeable discuss this, especially if this was a big deal then, or else at least explain why it WASN'T a big deal? 76.24.104.52 (talk) 23:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]