Talk:Battle of Lira/GA1
GA Review[edit]
| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 06:10, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
This article is in good shape, great to see this conflict getting some real attention. I have a comments:
- in the lead, put UNLF in full when first mentioned with the initialisation in parentheses after it
- Done.
- in the lead, suggest "UNLF's Kikosi Maalum force" as I initially thought it was a person
- Done.
- did David Oyite-Ojok have a rank?
- Why do I always forget this? Added Lieutenant Colonel.
- "set up an ambush west
toof Lira"- Done.
- link Dead reckoning and remove the quotes
- Done.
- times should be IAW MOS:TIME
- Done.
- suggest "...started to retreat as expected along the western road."
- Done.
- "towed double-barreled antiaircraft machine guns
emplacements" an emplacement is a fixed position on the ground, typically dug-in- Done.
- the fighting on the western road doesn't present as an ambush, it is more like an meeting engagement, as both sides were moving when they met. An ambush is when one side lies in wait for the other. This needs to be addressed.
- Revised lead parts that describe the actual fighting as an ambush. The Tanzanians certainly planned it as an ambush, so as far as their intentions are described, I've left the word in those places.
- I suggest adding a word here "One column of retreating soldiers ran into the advancing Tanzanian-UNLF troops west of the town" just to make it clear that it wasn't actually an ambush. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: Done.
- I suggest adding a word here "One column of retreating soldiers ran into the advancing Tanzanian-UNLF troops west of the town" just to make it clear that it wasn't actually an ambush. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:35, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- Revised lead parts that describe the actual fighting as an ambush. The Tanzanians certainly planned it as an ambush, so as far as their intentions are described, I've left the word in those places.
- "The surviving Ugandan Army soldiers"
- "Uganda Army" was the official name of the country's military at the time.
- Fair enough. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:09, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- "Uganda Army" was the official name of the country's military at the time.
- "took measure of the Ugandan Army's losses"
- ^
- "over 70 Ugandan Army"
- ^^
- "Remnants of the Ugandan Army"
- ^^^
- suggest "were preparing for a showdown
betweenwith each other"- Done.
- "thus were secretly recruited..."
- in Note c "wrote that the Ugandan Army soldiers"
- ^^^^^^
- not being familiar with the local press, I am left wondering about the reliability of the Daily Monitor and New Vision. Can you elucidate?
- The Daily Monitor and New Vision are both, from what I can tell, relatively large online national news outlets for Uganda, and direct competitors with each other. The first is entirely privately-owned, and the second is published by a larger corporation (often dubbed the "Vision Group") which operates with the assistance of government funding. A Google search shows that both have been cited by well-published books and scholarly sources for Ugandan topics. The former has sister printed publications, such as the Sunday Monitor, and the latter's owning group operates a wide array of media outlets, such as a TV network. Most of the Daily Monitor material on the Uganda-Tanzania War is written by Henry Lubega and Faustin Mugabe, both of whom seem to be typical staff writers. Lubega's articles have also been reprinted in the Tanzanian press. Both of them seem quite reliable journalists, and I do recall on one occasion Lubega referencing a visit to a military museum in Tanzania and looking at the TPDF's official history, so it's clear they do their research. I exercise caution on a case-by-case basis when they print large, unedited interviews/essays by involved subjects, such as veterans of the war, but in this article none of those cited have given me any cause for concern.
- I reckon the NFUR for the wreckage image is fine and has high encyclopaedic value. The maps are also fine.
Nice work. Just placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:05, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
- @Peacemaker67: I have responded to your comments. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:19, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- This article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)