Wikipedia:Peer review/Botswana/archive1

Botswana

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion is closed.

I've listed this article for peer review because Botswana’s topics are usually not covered due to systematic bias and I would really like to get a vital article to GA status.

Thanks, 48JCL ^(talk) 18:04, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As country articles go, this is in a reasonably nice shape. Going through, with broad strokes:

Organisationally the lead is mostly fine, but the entire paragraph on AIDS at the bottom seems like something someone threw on at the end; it should be moved to the body. The nonsense about Forbes under 30 should be in a sub-article, if anywhere, and Netball Youth Cup also very weird.
In terms of specific text, the lead does not appear to be a summary. Its sources should be incorporated into the body and the lead should ensure it covers at least with a word or two each section/subsection.
History section is not too long, but has some points of overdetail. Research details are not needed, eg. "Archaeological digs...", "In October 2019, researchers reported...". Speaking of the October 2019 sentence, that seems somewhat an overstatement of certainty. The significant detail about specific settlements could be reduced too. I note very little appears to be in the main History of Botswana article, this detail should be moved there. The early modern history reads much more concisely, although again worth checking if it can be copied into the main article. The final Independence

subsection could be rewored, the Queen Elizabeth tour detail should be moved to the main article, and the political history should be perhaps reduced in detail to make room for a more holistic summary.

Geography needs a rework and overhaul. The basics are disjointed and completely unsourced. The Biodiversity and conservation subsection lacks sources for its general information, and goes too detailed into specific projects. All this project detail could be shifted fully into Wildlife of Botswana, which lacks an equivalent section.
Government and politics seems very decently put together. Perhaps a bit too much history instead of focusing on the present, but a nice broad coverage of different aspects of governance. The Foreign relations and military subsection is a nice holdout from early Wikipedia, but unsure of its weight, and perhaps it could be on the main Politics of Botswana. Human rights has a bit which is too detailed on quoting a specific rapporteur statement, and it may be worth considering integrating the subsection as a whole into the main politics body, especially if something can be added about the participation or lack of of the San in politics.
The Administrative divisions subsection needs full reworking, it's just a list. This should say what the various divisions are, and explain their powers (or lack of).
The Economy section is a choppy list of tiny subsections. It should be overhauled into a holistic overview that reflects appropriate weight to different sectors of the Economy. The Transport subsection should be part of the Infrastructure section.
Demographics should be expanded with comprehensive coverage of general information while also shifting some of the excessive detail about specific cases to subpages. It may not be worth breaking out languages and religion as there is a strong single majority for each.
Culture is completely chopped up into tiny subsections. There should be a holistic coverage of culture rather than what is almost a list of specific items. Again, needs expansion for general information while trimming detail and considering the weight of subsections.
Education is an odd level 2 section. It appears largely unsourced, and its weight should be considered. The Science and technology subsection seems far too detailed for this level of article, and detail should be moved to Science and technology in Botswana. I would also suggest the general overview should be moved or mixed into the Economy section.
The Infrastructure section is an odd mix of subsections. It also needs a bit more general coverage and a reduction in the specific subsection detail. While moving Transport here, I would suggest moving Health to Demographics and Tourism to Economy.

Hope this has some good pointers. I would also have a look at the Rwanda article, which is a nice model. Best, CMD (talk) 02:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so so much! I will get to work straight away! 48JCL ^(talk) 00:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not modify my comments as you have done above. CMD (talk) 00:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

undone sorry 48JCL^TALK 15:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CMD, Thebiguglyalien is working on the History of Botswana article. 48JCL^TALK 15:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Botswana article is on my radar for something I might work on in the future, and I'll reference this peer review if I do. I am working on History of Botswana, and at the very least I hope to rewrite the country's history section as a summary of the history article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great that the main History article is being worked on, they're so often ignored. Feel free to ping me if there's a similar review or other process on that. CMD (talk) 10:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Would it be possible if anyone here did a source review? 48JCL^TALK 00:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of sources here, so not doing a full review, but I would say at a rapid run through it's mostly okay. A lot of decent papers, some government sites and NGOs etc. which is fine at this level. Travel companies like africantravelinc.com not great, but the sentence that is citing should be removed in full anyway. If you want me to look at a specific subsection I'd be willing, however worth noting that for GA-level you don't need top-tier sources, just reliable ones. CMD (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]