Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Angolan Civil War/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 16:28, 18 November 2007.

Angolan Civil War[edit]

I'm nominating this article for featured article status because it fully covers the topic in detail exceeding several other articles currently listed as FACs. I dealt with the war's impact after it ended in '02, foreign involvement in supporting different sides, and I actually ended up creating articles on other wars, Shaba II, as I researched the circumstances in Angola. Perspicacite 12:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Without reading the article, I feel the lead does a poor job of summarizing and explaining the conflict. Could something be done in regards to this? Thank you. 70.51.118.198 17:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, not unless you point out something specific you dislike about the lead. What do you feel is missing? Perspicacite 18:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection [due to 1a, 3] Very interesting piece of history.

The writing style is not elegant, engaging, or brilliant. It states the facts in a style that's not very pleasing.

One picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Namibia_mapa.png is great, more images in that style are needed.

There is a better way to organize the article than through decades.

The spanish language version seems substancially nicer, has an image of the bust of Neto the english version could use, has a better infobox, has better section-naming. I suggest piracy! :)

--Keerllston 21:36, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- I'm not sure that you're objection's overly helpful as you don't suggest ways in which the article is lacking, or give suggestions for how the writing and organization of the article could be improved --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 21:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I stated what I thought was wrong with it, and while I didn't provide examples, I was honest - fact is though, I was pressed for time and hoped to continue it, elaborating on specific examples and so on. Thanks for being honest. I appreciate it.--Keerllston 03:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Organization by the decades is how Angola's history is usually dissected - if you have an alternative I am open to suggestion. Half of the Spanish language version discusses Angola's war for independence, a completely different war. Neto died four years into the war. He's not all that notable in relation to the conflict. How should the infobox be changed? Which section titles would you change? Perspicacite 22:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - While the spanish version uses half of itself to talk about something else, this one hardly has an introduction! (I kid) let me elaborate further on what I meant.--Keerllston 03:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Elaboration/Continuation

~~Well, there is no image in the infobox, - an image would be really nice. otherwise~~ the only improvement in the spanish version is the casualties per side, which currently has only civilian casualties.

The spanish version actually has three images that are some good! Neto, and Dos Santos and one about south african invasions! They might be unimportant to the article in general, but to specific sections they seem to me rather relevant. (I've just discovered that the image I praised in the article is also in spanish, surprise!) I want more pictures in the article to increase ease in understanding, to help contextualize the conflict. I guess

What about the distinct sides? Shouldn't there be a description of the sides of the conflict? there is a tiny description in the lead, saying where each had support, and I suppose there are articles of each side in their own article, but a section (called "Actors" or "Armed Forces" or something else) further explaining each side, would be helpful to comprehension.

I know you it was probably my ~~critique~~ unsupported criticism about the writing style that annoyed you. I'll try to show what I meant.

The lead needs work. Specifically the second paragraph. Specifically the first and second sentences. "The conflict, one of the largest Cold War conflicts of the developing world, involved three main factions and several smaller ones." are you're trying to say that the conflict involved three main factions and several smaller ones, introducing your next sentence? are you trying to say that it is one of the largest Cold War conflicts of the developing world? Either way, not a very good sentence, talking about two very separate subjects.

"Government troops wounded Savimbi in battles in January and February 1990. Namibia declared independence on April 1. The MPLA ended the one-party system in June and rejected Marxist-Leninism at the MPLA's third Congress in December, formally changing the party's name from the MPLA-PT to the MPLA. Savimbi went to Washington, D.C. in December and met with President George H. W. Bush. The National Assembly passed law 12/91 in May 1991, coinciding with the withdrawal of the last Cuban troops, defining Angola as a "democratic state based on the rule of law" with a multi-party system." Stating the facts - the facts themselves tell the story, they are the right facts. But it's not elegant, and the facts are engaging even though the writing style isn't. That the writing style is not elegant - I think we can agree, brilliant - I think we can also agree, engaging is troublesome because of the facts being so very interesting.

How would I propose to change the above? Well, I think it's rather significant that this is how 90s beg~~ins~~[an], not with any introduction, but with facts, lots of them, in quick succession, rather than an introduction to the topic. Rather than a description of any kind.

I hope I have made my earlier comments clearer, more helpful.

--Keerllston 03:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice addition of the image of Senator Clark!

Note - Topics in Article: Chronology, "Legacy", "Cultural Influence", [soon also "Cabida"]

Wow! 90s introduction is better. My previous comments are becoming outdated! I'm glad.

--Keerllston 03:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Objection until properly copy-edited. Just at the opening, and in many other places, there are things that need attention. The whole text needs fresh eyes.

"mid-2000s"—Some people promote the idea of this term as standing for just a single decade, but it will confuse many readers, who will think it means around 2050. In any case, you say the war formally closed in 2002, which is mid nothing.

Done Perspicacite 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"27-year long war"—Two hyphens, not one, required. There are other examples of this, too.

Done Perspicacite 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The conflict, one of the largest Cold War conflicts of the developing world,"—"conflict" twice? of --> in?

Done Perspicacite 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

the US, apartheid SA—there's a time-shift in this list, at least it's a little jarring to have to think "ah, it means Sth Af in the earlier part of the conflict, and the US throughout ... or does it?"
And at random: "By mid-November, the Huambo government had control over ..."—insert "gained". MOS breaches, for example, in the spacing of currency value, final period in non-sentence captions, and the need for logical punctuation at the end of quotations. Tony (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Perspicacite 00:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had in mind something a little more intensive than this. Apart from all of the other issues, I see that decades are linked. Why? Tony (talk) 12:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, very well written, factual and comprehensive article. It really was a pleasant read, I see no reason why it should not be promoted. Regards, Bogdan ^що? 03:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — The introduction doesn't go far enough in identifying the issues or making the article accessible. Where is Angola? Where is Cabinda? Why did Cabinda seek separate independence? Why did this become a proxy conflict? Why did it become polarised? What political factors were involved? --ROGER DAVIES ^TALK 19:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. FA criteria: It's 1a in that it is not encyclopedic style to lack those things. It's 1b in that it's not comprehensive to lack those things.
In the history it said the Cabinda section would be amplified, I understood it to mean that more work would be done in the introduction in general... I am not entirely sure what FA candidateship means - is it the current status with minor changes, or it the article in its future status that is being nominated?--Keerllston 12:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When I said I would 'amplify it soon' I meant a couple of days, as in Wednesday, most likely. Perspicacite 13:33, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't mean to hurry you or single you out-

a disclaimer would have been nice, noting that changes are being made, etc. I put one up myself.

reviewers are not responsible for noting every single error

the "done" templates suggested that you believed your work was through in regards to Tony's comment, when he was talking about a larger issue

That placed the done templates in that way led me to doubt that you were going to work further on the larger issues, considering your work done, having fixed the examples.--Keerllston 16:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: Significant work in large quantity is in progress on this article, comments on current status might become outdated.[-- disclaimer added by Keerllston on 16:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)][reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.