Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Zanzibar Revolution

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Zanzibar Revolution[edit]

Passed --Eurocopter (talk) 12:44, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am nominating this article as it has passed its GA review and I think that it is as complete as I can make it. Ideally I want to get this to FA some day, many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments before support.

  • Put citations after punctuations.
Fixed a couple of cases, let me know if I missed any - Dumelow (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Script says there are still some left. Use the Ctrl + F feature in firefox to search for them. ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 17:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure I got them all. The only ones I can find without punctuation are those after the numbers in the infobox - Dumelow (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Figures in infobox should be cited.
Sorry must have missed that, now fixed - Dumelow (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Needs strength for both forces.
Unfortunately I have only been able to find reliable sources for the rebels but it the government forces were essentially the strength of the entire police force (which I couldn't find numbers for, although the reorganised force numbered 600 post-revolution). Would it be better to put "Zanzibar police force" in there or just leave it blank? - Dumelow (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Put it in there. It's better than being blank. ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 17:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done - Dumelow (talk) 19:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change The Revolution to just "Revolution".
The heading right? If so it is now done - Dumelow (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll get on that - Dumelow (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 16:34, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Lazulilasher

Good work. I only performed a cursory overview of the article and I have a number of suggestions. You mention you would like to take this article to FA at some point, and I will tailor my comments to that goal. Again, good work and I hope that you find my suggestions helpful.

  • Lead: "The revolution occurred early on the morning of 12 January 1964 when the revolutionaries overran the country's police force and took their weaponry..." Revolution...revolutionaries? These words are oft-repeated consistently throughout the lead. This tires the reader. Consider rewording, perhaps "Hostilities began....when revolutionaries overran...", etc.
    • Consider: "The revolutionaries then attacked the Arab and South Asian civilians in the country."
Good point. I have made some changes to the lead which hopefully solves this - Dumelow (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Origins Watch redudancies in text: "It consisted of the main island of Unguja (informally known as Zanzibar), the smaller island known as Pemba to the north of Unguja, and numerous minor islands." "Numerous" doesn't add to the reader's comprehension. Is "known as" required?
I have changed this sentence a bit but left "numerous" and "known as" in as the sentence didn't sound right without them. If you can think of a better phrasing then feel free to make the change - Dumelow (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likewise: "However, the major political parties were still organised largely along ethnic lines with the Arab Zanzibar Nationalist Party (ZNP) and the African Afro-Shirazi Party (ASP)"
Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "under Sultan Jamshid bin Abdullah who was liked by the majority of population." What does "liked" mean? According to whom? There should be some discussion of the rubric used to determine this.
The source just says "liked by the majority of the population" but I will check it over again and change the article accordingly - Dumelow (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed this part a bit, let me know if its any better - Dumelow (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There was also a significant minority of 50,000 Arabs" Watch for redundant words like "also"
I sorted this one, I will check through for more instances - Dumelow (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we clarify how much more the Arabs were generally paid? As I read this, I found myself searching for a scale (i.e., was there substantial inequality?) so I could understand the situation.
I have not found any figures on this but I'll go through the sources again and check to see if any of them elaborates on this - Dumelow (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed this to "generally much better paid" which is what the source states. I have been unable to clarify this further - Dumelow (talk) 23:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This resulted in both the ASP and the ZNP winning 11 seats of the 22 in parliament" I am not a c/e guru, but should "parliament" be capitlized?
Yes I think it should be capitalised. Done - Dumelow (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's all I have for now. I'll come back later if time permits. Again: excellent work so far. Regards, Lazulilasher (talk) 16:49, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for looking over this article your suggestions have been very helpful - Dumelow (talk) 11:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    • The "Zanzibar Police Force" for strength in the infobox is bad, for example, I could say that in the Iraq War, American strength is the "US Army" but that doesn't help anyone who doesn't know how many people are in the army.
I added this following the discussion at the top of this page (previously it was blank). My instinct is to leave it blank but I will go with which ever consensus is drawn on this page - Dumelow (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I noticed that. While I agree that it is better to leave it blank, I suppose that it is fine as it is now. Is there anything it can be linked to that would give more information?– Joe Nutter 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Whilst much of the communist bloc had already recognised the country Britain, the US and most Commonwealth withheld recognition until 23 February." This sentence is awkward and ambiguous. Please reword it.
I have changed this sentence, should read better now - Dumelow (talk) 08:21, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "whilst the Hebe had just finished removing stores from the naval depot at Mombassa and was loaded with weapons and explosives." Hebe should be italicized.
Must have missed one. Fixed - Dumelow (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can Operation Parthenon, Operation Finery, Operation Shed, and Operation Boris be linked to anything?
There are no relevant articles at the moment. The source does provide some more info on the operations so they could perhaps have their own articles, are they notable enough for this? - Dumelow (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that if the sources have enough information to create a decent article about them you might as well go ahead and do so; I don't see why they wouldn't be notable, the British military seems to have been pretty focused on them, at least for a short while.– Joe Nutter 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK I will start work on these new articles - Dumelow (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The event caused concern to the Western powers that communism might gain a foothold in East Africa and was one of the main causes of the army riots in Tanganyika, Kenya and Uganda which saw the modernisation of their armed forces." This sentence makes little sense. Did the riots cause the modernization? Please rephrase it.
Rephrased, don't know where I got the bit about modernisation from, I couldn't find it any sources so I have removed it. The legacy section could use some expansion but there isn't much written about it - Dumelow (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any way to remove the See Also section? Last I heard they were discoureged, and it seems slightly pointless since it only has one link in it.
I think that is a hangover from the article prior to my rewrite. I have no objections to removing it but I will look for a way to integrate the link into the text first - Dumelow (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, it is a useful link to have. – Joe Nutter 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The history is now linked in the origins section (which I expanded slightly with a new ref) so the see also section is now gone - Dumelow (talk) 22:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise it looks OK; please fix these first before I can support it though. Joe Nutter 23:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting now on assumption that See Also section will be fixed. – Joe Nutter 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - Looked through the article, couldn't find anything wrong. Good work! Skinny87 (talk) 18:53, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I can see no problems hindering support. I do have a couple of questions though: is there any information on how the Revolution was viewed in the Arab world? Are there any memorials or monuments to the Revolution in Zanzibar or elsewhere?
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Zanzibar_Revolution&oldid=858610907"