GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Midnightblueowl ( talk · contribs) 13:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
An interesting and important topic. If there are no objections, I'll take on this review.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
13:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Generally, I find that the prose is well written, and thus meets criteria 1. There are, however, a few prose issues that I would raise:
On the second criteria, that of verifiability, the article does a nice job of summarising an array of academic sources. I would, however, raise a few issues with the formatting of the sources:
I worry about whether this article, in its present states, meets criteria 4, neutrality. The use of the term "atrocities" in the title is a very loaded one; if this is the term uniformly used by the Reliable Sources then I think that it is acceptable, but if it isn't then I really think that we need to find an alternative. Similarly, I feel that some of the prose is written in a manner that does promote a particular interpretation of the information: for example, "Among the most infamous crimes committed during the period was the mutilation of hands." While this information is important and worthy of inclusion, it could be written in a far more neutral manner; moreover, no information actually given in the article indicates that this was a crime under Congolese law at the time. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
On criteria 6, that of images, there are a few issues. The caption to the "File:Victim of Congo atrocities, Congo, ca. 1890-1910 (IMP-CSCNWW33-OS10-19).jpg" image contains a quote without an accompanying citation. Moreover, almost all of the images lack full descriptions and tags indicating why they are Public Domain in Belgium and the United States. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Brigade Piron: I'm going to go ahead and pass this. I think that it meets the GA criteria, although going forward—if you want to take it on to FAC—I think that you may likely face scrutiny over some of the images and the use of "atrocities". Well done for all of your hard work! Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
aside from being poorly-organised,
& with a substandard photo-layout,
the article is deeply slanted to "downplay" and to "normalise" belgian actions in the congo,
as being both "par for the course" or european colonisation
AND
"no worse that what those people were doing to themselves & each other anyway"
i am NOT one to throw around terms like "neocolonialist" easily;
infact, i generally dislike such terms.
but, after reading so many paragraphs downplaying belgian colonial actions here;
about how most o those mutilated corpses were (probably) already dead when their hands were cut off,
about how "most of the violence was african on african,
about how "most of the european administrators didn't do anything wrong, but it was just a few bad apples",
etc.
etc.
etc.
... after all of that, at a certain point, 2 things become obvious:
1. that the article is wp:bullshit
&
2. that the primary author is deliberately downplaying belgian responsibility, the actions of the colonisers, & the consequences of those actions.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Article (
|
visual edit |
history) ·
Article talk (
|
history) ·
Watch
Reviewer: Midnightblueowl ( talk · contribs) 13:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
An interesting and important topic. If there are no objections, I'll take on this review.
Midnightblueowl (
talk)
13:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Generally, I find that the prose is well written, and thus meets criteria 1. There are, however, a few prose issues that I would raise:
On the second criteria, that of verifiability, the article does a nice job of summarising an array of academic sources. I would, however, raise a few issues with the formatting of the sources:
I worry about whether this article, in its present states, meets criteria 4, neutrality. The use of the term "atrocities" in the title is a very loaded one; if this is the term uniformly used by the Reliable Sources then I think that it is acceptable, but if it isn't then I really think that we need to find an alternative. Similarly, I feel that some of the prose is written in a manner that does promote a particular interpretation of the information: for example, "Among the most infamous crimes committed during the period was the mutilation of hands." While this information is important and worthy of inclusion, it could be written in a far more neutral manner; moreover, no information actually given in the article indicates that this was a crime under Congolese law at the time. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
On criteria 6, that of images, there are a few issues. The caption to the "File:Victim of Congo atrocities, Congo, ca. 1890-1910 (IMP-CSCNWW33-OS10-19).jpg" image contains a quote without an accompanying citation. Moreover, almost all of the images lack full descriptions and tags indicating why they are Public Domain in Belgium and the United States. Midnightblueowl ( talk) 13:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
@ Brigade Piron: I'm going to go ahead and pass this. I think that it meets the GA criteria, although going forward—if you want to take it on to FAC—I think that you may likely face scrutiny over some of the images and the use of "atrocities". Well done for all of your hard work! Midnightblueowl ( talk) 18:23, 1 September 2016 (UTC)
aside from being poorly-organised,
& with a substandard photo-layout,
the article is deeply slanted to "downplay" and to "normalise" belgian actions in the congo,
as being both "par for the course" or european colonisation
AND
"no worse that what those people were doing to themselves & each other anyway"
i am NOT one to throw around terms like "neocolonialist" easily;
infact, i generally dislike such terms.
but, after reading so many paragraphs downplaying belgian colonial actions here;
about how most o those mutilated corpses were (probably) already dead when their hands were cut off,
about how "most of the violence was african on african,
about how "most of the european administrators didn't do anything wrong, but it was just a few bad apples",
etc.
etc.
etc.
... after all of that, at a certain point, 2 things become obvious:
1. that the article is wp:bullshit
&
2. that the primary author is deliberately downplaying belgian responsibility, the actions of the colonisers, & the consequences of those actions.