Wikipedia:Peer review/Rwanda/archive2

Rwanda

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

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because I have been doing a lot of work on it of late and feel it is now of reasonably good quality now. I would therefore like to begin the article's push towards a WP:FAC candidacy.

For information, the article was based loosely on the featured article version of the Cameroon article, i.e. this version. That was three years ago, so the standards have probably gone up since then but it was hopefully a useful starting point!

Finally, I am aware that there are several redlinks in the article. I will be dealing with those (creating corresponding articles) over the coming weeks.

Thanks, and I look forward to hearing everyone's opinions! — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chimpunkdavis comments[edit]

I'm not a good peer reviewer, but I'll make some quick comments.

Hi Chipmunkdavis and many thanks for the review! Very useful comments, and my responses are below.

The article seems to be well sourced, but the way the sources are formatted is strange. Better to link the inline citations directly to Rwanda#References than to the details of references you have in notes.
The technique I have chosen for referncing the article is as described in WP:CITESHORT. The main reason for this is that the reference list is very long, with many of them being simply different pages of the same book. If every separate citation was spelled out in full, you would have a very long list occupying large amounts of vertical space down the page. This way, however, the actual citations can be condensed into five columns, with the corresponding references (of which there are fewer, though still quite a few) listed in full below. There are actually some templates around which allow direct linkage betwen the two, so you could click the citation to get to the reference below. I could consider implementing that if it would be helpful. — Amakuru (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you mean a template similar to that used on British Empire#References, it'd be useful, yes. I'd think about working on that whenever you have a free sec, one reference at a time or something. It is just that it would make it easier, although you've done a good job that for most of the sources you can just ctrl+c the reference into find. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 16:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll get on to that when I have some spare time. — Amakuru (talk) 19:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One or two more pictures would not go awry, especially in History, although that shouldn't stand in the way of any promotions.
I'll see what I can find. I thought that one of the pictures of the old kings from [1] would be very nice, but I'm not sure if we can be sure of the copyright status - despite their being taken around 1910 you can't be certain that the photographer died more than fifty years ago etc. — Amakuru (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Be nice to have some etymology of the name "Rwanda", and maybe an expansion of the administrative divisions section slightly, maybe with an expansion on the roles of each of the levels of governance.
Done - not much to say about etymology as I believe it's basically unknown. I have expanded the administrative section as you suggest. — Amakuru (talk) 14:02, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK. — Amakuru (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally, probably best to go for Good Article first, before Featured article!
I don't think that's a must - I would personally prefer to go all out for FA status now, or at least attempt to do so, rather than getting GA and then having to do the push all over again. If it ultimately fails FA then I may consider that approach. — Amakuru (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No action - we'll see when we get that far :-) — Amakuru (talk) 12:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a whole, it looks very well sourced. Anyway, those are my short opinions, hopefully someone else can give a slightly better lookover! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 03:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the review. — Amakuru (talk) 07:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Victor12 comments[edit]

Hello, here are some comments.

Almost half of the lead section is devoted to summarizing Rwandan history. This seems somewhat unbalanced.
OK; I'll look into refactoring this in the next week or two to get it more balanced. — Amakuru (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done - the lead is now rewritten and is hopefully more balanced. — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the History section might suffer from a mild case of recentism with two paragraphs (out of seven) devoted to the last twenty of Rwanda's 10,000 years of history. It might be useful to summarize the account of the 1994 genocide and merge this paragraph with the following one.
I guess so... In defence of the current structure, I would say that there's not a lot in those two paragraphs that we'd really want to leave out. In the eyes of the international world and, indeed the press of Rwanda, the genocide is the single defining event in the country's history. Maybe a hundred years from now we will look at the bigger picture, I'm not sure. The other thing is that the early history (pre-colonialism) is largely undocumented which means it's difficult to go into very much detail. I'll have a look at this anyway, though. — Amakuru (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Politics section 102nd out of 180 does not seem particularly "corruption free".
The article does say "relatively" (although this is of course a weasel term)... for an African country with a troubled history, being in the bottom 50% of the world seems quite notable. I'll see if I can phrase this in a more concrete and meaningful manner. — Amakuru (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I've updated it to the 2010 figures, which are more impressive than the 2008: Transparency International ranked Rwanda as the 66th cleanest out of 178 countries in the world, and 8th out of 47 in Sub-Saharan Africa. — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Culture section, text is sandwiched between the Holidays table and the picture of Intore dancers, this seems to go against the spirit of WP:MOSIMAGES: Avoid sandwiching text between two images that face each other even though the Holidays table is not an image. IMHO Holidays are not that important so the table could easily be moved to the relevant subarticle. BTW, the sentence Eleven regular national holidays are observed throughout the year, with others occasionally inserted by the government currently links to Public holidays in Cameroon!
Oops :-) I have corrected that error, and also removed the holidays table to the sub-article (the correct one, not the Cameroon one).

Done - Holidays table removed to subarticle, all sandwiching of images fixed and the "Cameroon" link also fixed. — Amakuru (talk) 13:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the Economy section, semi-subsistence agriculture does not strike me as a particularly clear concept.
Will clarify.

Done - I've changed it to subsistence agriculture. — Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It might be a good idea to place images below links to main articles at the start of each section for alignment purposes.
OK, I'll look into this. I will likely be adding a couple of more images soon as well, per comments above.

Closed - this is now done for some sections: politics, geography, demographics and culture. However, I don't think it essential to have the top image left aligned for all sections, unless others disagree. — Amakuru (talk) 13:12, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all for now. Nice effort overall, keep up the good work. --Victor12 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for the review! — Amakuru (talk) 06:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by BanyanTree[edit]

Let's see if I remember how to review an article. Props for taking this on, as I've never been able to summon up the courage to push forward on Rwandan Genocide, nevertheless a country-level article.

Lede: The lead, especially the end of the first paragraph, needs to be tightened. Broadly, per WP:LEAD it needs to be tightly tied to specific cited content in the main body of the article. For example, the lead paragraph states "Unlike many African countries, Rwanda is home to only one significant ethnic and linguistic group, the Banyarwanda." and then at the beginning of the next paragraph states the Twa "still live in Rwanda as a minority today", raising the question of if the article is stating the Twa are not "significant" and what that means exactly. And then in the Demographics section, there is no mention of minorities or significance whatsoever, though there is an assertion in the History section about current minority status that might better be placed in the Demographics section.
Done - I have completely rewritten the lead, and it now closely follows the text, with every section hopefully represented.

Other lead items:

I would recommend ending the first paragraph after three or four sentences, as it eventually becomes a grab bag of quick-fire topics (geography -> wildlife -> tourism -> cities -> demography -> culture -> languages). After a quick opening lead, make the next paragraph about geography, and then give each significant topic its own paragraph. If you can't come up with three sentences on a topic that absolutely have to be in the lead for the reader to understand the country, either remove the topic or merge it into another related topic.
Done - it is split into separate section-by-section now. Per WP:LEDE I have not allocated a whole paragraph for every section, as the maximum permitted is four. People may feel it's still a little long but we'll see how that goes. — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The lead states that "Abundant wildlife, including rare mountain gorillas, have led to a fast-growing tourism sector." AND "political and social stability. This has permitted the development of agriculture, roads, tourism, and mining industries." While the first tourism comment is probably better grouped with the second, at least one of these statements has to be false, if the other is correct.
Removed - this text has gone with the lead rewrite. — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's unnecessary wordy passive verbs: "is noted for", "is well known", "earliest known inhabitants", etc. In order to be kept, you need to specify who is noting, knowing, etc. You probably want to just trim these bits out.
Done - new lead has much less of this, I believe. — Amakuru (talk) 22:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Other:

In "Historians believe that humans moved into what is now Rwanda", "Historians believe that" can be cut as one presumes that the given reference supports the statement.
Done — Amakuru (talk) 14:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I consider Rwanda - The Bradt Travel Guide to be a low-credibility source and am uncomfortable that is relied upon exclusively for many statements. I would much prefer an academic source.
There's an excessive (imo) focus on the Rwandan kingdom as the precursor of the modern state, rather than describing the various states that exist in the area of the modern state, if you see what I'm saying. In comparison the History of Rwanda article initially focuses on the other states in the 15th century. In any case, coverage needs to be realigned to be of Rwanda, not exclusively the Kingdom of Rwanda.
Done - I have now phrased it in terms of a number of early kingdoms, with Rwanda (which was after all the entity found and built upon by the Germans) as the one which later became dominant. — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The focus in the History of... article on Rwabugiri may be excessive, but I'm a little confused that Rwabugiri is now entirely absent from the Rwanda article, while the founder of the 3rd dynasty (Ruganzu II) is stated to be the pivotal figure in the kingdom. I hadn't even heard of this person before reading it just now. This just needs a fact check to see what various sources say. The article on Yuhi III, who is listed as mwami 200 years later, states that it's unsure if he is mythological or not, so I have to ask if Ruganzu II is also an oral history, mythological figure. I'm by no means a historical expert, but it seems to me that the administrative reforms and political consolidation by Rwabugiri (e.g. ubuhake and uburetwa) are of a level with German colonization in terms of significance. Certainly the ethnic distinctions now so important were clarified by the various forms of clientship introduced by him.
Done - Rwabugiri, ubuhake and uburetwa now mentioned and I've removed Ruganzu Ndori; as far as I can gather he is a prominent figure in the oral histories, and his supposed exploits may be the memory of an actual big event or dynastic break. However, you're right that we cannot say with any degree of certainty that he existed. — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The statement referenced to Munyakazi & Ntagaramba about the historical kingdom extending into the DRC is contested. See Banyamulenge#cite_note-3 for a relevant cite, but Pottier's Re-Imagining Rwanda (2002), p. 46 etc devastates the RPF claim that their "defense" of the Banyamulenge is justified by historical borders. I would check Munyakazi & Ntagaramba and see if they use Alexis Kagame or his protege Jacques Maquet as their source.
Removed - the source is actually an atlas used by schools in Rwanda when teaching geography and history. As such, it does not explicitly state its sources, but could well use Alexis Kagame. Now have a more realistic reckoning of the greatest extent, per Chretien and Mamdani. — Amakuru (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"disfranchising the Hutus by subjugating their northwest kingdoms into the King's central control." is referenced to Pottier 11, but I can't find the relevant line. The first reason this statement is problematic is that I'm not sure how taking over NW kingdoms would disenfranchise Hutus already under the control of the Rwandan kingdom. The second is that this appears to be referring to the Kiga people, the article for which has been made incomprehensible by some editors with apparently vested interests who removed some sourced content I added a few years ago about how the Bakiga were not considered Hutu until they became politicized and "Hutu" became an umbrella term for "those subjugated by the Tutsi monarchy". (As a side note, the akazu was composed almost entirely by Bakiga.)
Fixed - I've removed the part about the northwest kingdoms. It was just a misreading of the source on my part - it mentions the extension of the sphere of influence into "areas in the north-west" and "Hutu kingdoms" but as separate entities. I've left the part about promoting Tutsi supremacy referenced to Pottier 11. Regarding the Bakiga, I personally knew several (from Uganda) during my time in Rwanda and I saw no evidence that they thought of themselves as Hutu or Rwandan. — Amakuru (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"those owning ten or more cattle labelled Tutsi and others as Hutu" is apocryphal, according to Pottier 117-119. Further, Pottier quotes Catherine Newbury as stating that the distinction was made entirely on the basis of wealth, not race. The Newburys in particular are the gold standard for Rwanda scholarship, imo.
Removed. I've included the comment about wealth as well, although I don't think we need to remove the part about physical charactersitics (I've now reffed this to Gourevitch rather than Briggs and Booth). The Kigali museum actually has pictures of the Belgians doing the measuring, unless those are faked.... — Amakuru (talk) 23:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Who calls the 1959-1961 period the "wind of destruction"? Some sources seem to avoid giving it a name, but I've also seen it titled the "social revolution".
I'm glad to see a range for the genocide death toll. A pet peeve of mine is how the number 800,000 has become utterly ingrained in coverage of the genocide, despite Gourevitch admitting it was a blatant guess, that even scholars like Alison Des Forges are accused of being pro-genocide for pointing out that demographic info suggests a toll closer to half a million.
No action - indeed. The figure cited in Rwanda itself is usually one million. A range is best since we don't know. — Amakuru (talk) 21:28, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove "slow and" from "took control of the country in a slow and methodical manner". "Slow" suggests that the RPF should have or wanted to rush to take over the country, and it appears that Kagame was going exactly the speed he thought he should to ensure victory.
Done — Amakuru (talk) 14:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence about Operation Turquoise is so problematic that I would suggest removing it. I'm not entirely sure you can disregard the argument that the French were trying to create an opening to save the friendly Hutu government from the anglophone RPF and thus wasn't supposed to "make a difference."
Done - well I have removed this, to avoid disputes and as part of general shortening, although this was somewhat reluctantly. IMO Turquoise was significant in qualifying the lack of international response (albeit with a "controversial" flag) and for setting the tone for Rwandan-French relations in later years. — Amakuru (talk) 14:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Great Lakes refugee crisis bits state as certain things that are highly contested. Operation Support Hope is probably not even worth mentioning in a country level article. "rising tension" didn't force the refugees back into Rwanda. The RPF assaulting the camps at the start of the first war disbanded the camps. This paragraph reverses the causation. Also "descendants of the Interahamwe" would be more accurate. (See {{Hutu militants}} for the progression.)
Done - I've corrected the causation error in that paragraph with new non-Briggs non-Booth citations and removed the Operation Hope. This has also led to the removal of the Congo Wars as I'm not sure how to fit them in. They are in any case mentioned under Politics.

I'm not sure what you mean about "decendants of the Interahamwe" - they were referred to by that name during the genocide and continue to be so to this day, usually under the umbrella term "Interahamwe and ex-FAR". However, my rephrasing means the term is no longer used so it's redundant anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 23:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, after a few hours of trying to remember sources I read years ago, I've only managed to make brief comments through the history section. I'll let you digest these while my brain attempts to recover. Drop me a line on my talk page if you want me to continue. - Banyan Tree 08:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]