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

Reviewer: Lemurbaby (talk · contribs) 13:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

1. I'll begin this review over the weekend. Cheers, Lemurbaby (talk) 13:39, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "Kagame's mother, Asteria Rutagambwa, was also a Tutsi from the family of the Queen" - specifically from the last queen of Rwanda, or from a clan that had supplied queens, or from a family that had once supplied a queen at some point? Does the source provide clarification? It would be good to include a name and wikilink once we have that level of detail. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: The source says "His wife, Asteria, was very closely related to the queen and so the family had access to the benefits of a position in traditoinal Rwandan society". So I think that must mean the wife of the king of the day, which would be Rosalie Gicanda. I have put that name into the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "It is likely that Rwigyema was killed by his subcommander Peter Bayingana" - what authorities have come to consensus on this version of the story? Ideally, the article would read (for example): "According to studies by the United Nations, government of Tanzania and..." etc. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done? actually I think I possibly overstated the "likelihood" of that version of events. I have rewritten to make it balanced and say which sources state what. Let me know if this works.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Rwandan Civil War section, the first mention of the size of the RPF is "hundreds of troops", and then next it's stated the troops were "reduced to fewer than 2,000". It would be good to find how many RPF troops were in Rwanda at its height (and when it hit its maximum) during this period to provide context to these two figures. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I've found a source giving it as "over 4,000".  — Amakuru (talk) 20:29, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "a 2012 report by French judges" - I think it's important to find a way to underscore that this report was highly scientific (unlike the 2006 report) and was meant to supersede the earlier findings. I believe (but I'd have to verify) that the 2012 report was endorsed by major bodies within the international community. If this is the case, it would be good to make it clear that the belief Kagame was involves is a minority view that has been largely refuted. Though the article needs to remain neutral, we also don't want to give more weight than is due to a position that has generally been rejected. But of course we need to be careful to keep the focus on facts and substantiated data on opinions. I know this is complicated and sensitive. What are your thoughts? Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done - well I have rephrased it as a chronological set of theories: first Prunier said this, then Bruguiere said that, then the later report used ballistic experts blah blah blah. Hopefully this conveys the balance of probabilities well enough. I'm somewhat sceptical that anyone can really say they know for sure what happened, particularly examining the case from 18 years on; but if we just follow what the sources say then we can't go far wrong really!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "the Interahamwe and the presidential guard began to kill" - it would be good to acknowledge those killed include moderate Hutus Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• the Domestic Situation section is the first time the Twa are mentioned. I added a wikilink, but I think it would make sense to explain early in the article that there were three traditional categories of people in Rwanda, name them, and possibly offer a brief explanation as it relates to the political conflicts. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done - I've introduced the three groups in the lead, and then put a bit more context in the Ugandan army section on how the Tutsi planned to fight the Hutu-dominated Rwandan army. Let me know if that fits.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "led to the loss of an estimated three million lives" - The article on the Second Congo War gives a range up to 5 million. Let's nuance this sentence to include what organization is offering the estimated range and then providing the range itself. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I have found an article quoting the IRC as stating a range of 3m to 7.6m. Let me know if that is nuanced enough.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In the section on Kagame's alleged involvement in the illegal exploitation of minerals in eastern DRC, are there more primary sources than the one report against him? If not, this may need to be reformulated to make it clear this is the only report to make such allegations. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done Found another report from March this year and added that.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• " he plans to extend this free education to cover the final three secondary years." - the extension to 12 years basic education is already in effect. Would you update this information and provide a more recent source? Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "only the English syllabi are now offered" - The point can be made even stronger by explaining that since 2009 English is the language of instruction in all public schools from grade 4 onward. Recent info here. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done: Thanks for the new ref. I've incorporated this into the paragraph... it seems slightly long and unwieldy the way I've written it, but might be OK. Let me know.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• It would be good to add in the economy section or foreign relations that the Kagame administration brought Rwanda into the Commonwealth of Nations, one of only two countries to do so without having been a former colony. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. I've also added a line about the UN security council seat and presidency.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding the shortage of qualified medical personnel, I would suggest rephrasing to something like "In response to shortages in qualified medical personnel, in 2012 the Government of Rwanda launched a nine-year $160(? can't recall) million initiative to train medical professionals..." with info from this or a better source on the Human Resources for Health (HRH) initiative. It's a problem that's being actively addressed right now and with the amount of money and attention of experts focused on it right now, it's likely to yield significant results, possibly even transforming Rwanda into a medical care hub for the region. I would also suggest rephrasing "the country's health profile remains dominated by communicable diseases..." because the actual incidence rates of some of these diseases (at least HIV and malaria for sure) is reportedly very low compared to most African countries, and the way it's currently described gives the opposite impression. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Partially done - I've put in your suggested sentence about the training programme. However, I've currently left in the part about communicable diseases, now at the beginning of the rejigged paragraph. It's pretty much a direct quotation from the world health organisation report for 2009 (which had a missing ref until now, apologies for that). I'm sure you know more about this topic than I do, but the WHO seems like quite an authoritative source unless they've issued any kind of update or change to literature since that 2009 document?  — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "(M23), began in 2012 and is still continuing as of 2013" - a peace agreement was signed in February and in March the leader turned himself in at the US Embassy (fun times); he's since been transferred to the ICC. This part probably should be rephrased to indicate a tenuous peace agreement was reached in February 2013, although M23 remains militarized and has issued threats against the UN peace keeping troops (or some more concise alternative). But then again, it's not over till it's over... Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I've tried to reflect the latest news  — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "it is likely that he had prior knowledge of the plan" - the authoritative source(s) need to be stated here and you'll want to clarify that it is a belief (not a known fact) as it's a statement that could be challenged. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done it was Prunier who stated this.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:11, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "donating large sums each year in budget support" and "stopped short of ending budgetary support altogether" - This doesn't seem quite accurate. DFID provides mainly budget support but USAID at an Agency level has only begun to shift toward budget support in principle in 2008, and in Rwanda it hasn't started yet due to political obstructions that have only lifted in the last couple of months. Project-based aid, yes, but not budget support. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I'm not really an expert in this area, so I mistakenly assumed military aid was a form of budget support. I've rephrased. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:37, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "critical of the West's lack of development aid in Africa" - maybe rephrase to something like "inadequate development aid" if the source supports this? Lack implies there is no aid at all (at least to my ears) and Kagame would be unlikely to assert there is no development aid in Africa. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done - actually that was one of the few bits of the article that I left in place from before I started work on it; obviously "aid" is the wrong term because the article pretty much says that Kagame blames the west for only giving aid. Hope this is better now. As I said below, I will revisit the China paragraph in due course. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think it would be interesting to expand just a little on the China relations section. The general feeling here is that the Rwandan government was positive toward China's development model initially, but as their infrastructure investments began deteriorating much more quickly than those of Western countries, the bloom came off the rose so to speak. But I haven't looked for any solid sources to confirm that rumor. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  To do - yes I always intended to expand on this section and will do so hopefully in the next few weeks. Let me know if it's urgent to do it now - I kind of thought I'd get by with the "broad coverage" required for GA as opposed to the "comprehensive" coverage needed for FA!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• In the citations, there are some instances where p= is used for page ranges. Would you edit to make sure p= is used for single pages and pp= is used for multiple pages? Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done  — Amakuru (talk) 22:30, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The Manual of Style sets that wikilinks be used on the term's first use in the lead, first use in the body and first use in an fffimage caption. I'm seeing some terms linked more often. Would you please go through and remove the extra links? Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done OK then that's done. My personal preference has usually been to have further links in unrelated sections, particuarly if they are a long way apart, because the sections of an article should be able to stand alone if that's the bit a particular reader wants to home in on. But no use arguing with the manual of style I guess!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I corrected an instance of Month-Day-Year date format in the prose. Would you make sure all the other dates in the prose are Day-Month-Year? I think it's probably fine to leave the dates in the citations as year-month-day. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I can't see any other instances of this.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:15, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Double-check capitalization is consistent throughout. Examples: "Arusha accords" or "Arusha Accords", "Virunga Mountains" or "Virunga mountains" (the latter I changed to "Virunga mountains" throughout) etc. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I've tried to be reasonably consistent in style throughout. Most words like president, queen, constitution, parliament etc. are now lower cae per WP:MOSCAP except where they are directly part of a title. Arusha Accords kept capitals as it's the title of a single thing.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Double-check that punctuation is only used at the end of image captions when the caption is a complete sentence. I removed one instance of this. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done I couldn't see any other examples of this.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some foreign-language words that you italicize on the first instance, others you always italicize, and some you never italicize. It would be good if you could apply the same system throughout the article for all foreign language words. I typically italicize on the first instance only, but I don't believe the Manual of Style has a set rule for this, just that it needs to be consistent. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Done - yes, I think I prefer to italicise all occurrences of foreign words so have hopefully implemented that consistently. Per the MOS (somewhere) I've not italicised words such as "de facto" and "blitzkrieg" and also "Tutsi" because they are now genuine English words appearing in the Merriam-Webster online dictionary. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be some kind of an issue with many of the citations' Harvard formatting. There are 60+ that seem to have lost their "anchor" so when I click the short ref in the Notes section, they don't connect to the main ref in the References section. There is also a reference in the first section that isn't in shortened format. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Done I think it's OK now. I'll check again in a while to make sure I haven't missed one.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well done - that was a lot of work. I'm seeing just a few anchors that still need fixing: refs 92, 104, 144, 145, 278, 279 and 281. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  D'oh, silly me. Done again I hope.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Really nice job throughout. You've got a real talent for writing on complex and sensitive topics in a clear, understandable and objective way. I especially liked how you handled the section on possible mineral wealth gained by Kagame through the Congo wars. Short, sweet, factual and fair. Thanks for all you're doing here to improve info on important Rwandan topics. Lemurbaby (talk) 10:05, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• These changes look great. I've done a sweep and adjusted wording in a couple of places. This is ready for GA, and I hope you'll nominate it for FA soon as well. The piece on China could always be expanded during the FA review since they tend to go on for 2-4 weeks. Let me know if you do nominate it so I can provide my support there as well. - Lemurbaby (talk) 04:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, one last detail. There are still several sources in the References section that aren't connected to their "anchors" in the notes section. They are the following:

• Ministry of Education (MINEDUC), Republic of Rwanda (2010-07-13). "Achievements (2003–2010)". Retrieved 2012-02-16. (Anchor = CITEREFMINEDUC2010)
• CNN (2012-01-11). "Report: Rebels cleared in plane crash that sparked Rwandan genocide". Retrieved 2012-10-10. (Anchor = CITEREFCNN2012)
• United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2000). "Ch. 10: "The Rwandan Genocide and its Aftermath"". The State of the World's Refugees 2000: Fifty Years of Humanitarian Action. Geneva; New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019924104X. Retrieved 2010-10-29.(Anchor = CITEREFUNHCR2000)
• Washington Post (1996-10-31). "Rwanda, Zaire move toward war". Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. Retrieved 2010-11-04. (Anchor = CITEREFWashington_Post1996)