Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Angolan Civil War/1
Angolan Civil War[edit]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
- Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • • GAN review not found
- Result: Consensus to delist. Hog Farm Talk 18:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)
GA from 2007. There's some uncited sections and a refimprove tag for roots of the the conflict section that needs to be cited. Onegreatjoke (talk) 18:39, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delist - "Ethnic divisions" and "Portuguese colonialism" subsections lack any references, and perhaps a few dozen other sentences lack full referencing. Prose like The Angolan Civil War was notable due to ... needs to be reworked, while statements like demining operations expected to finish by 2014 betray the outdatedness of the article. The Aftermath and "In popular culture" sections are not cohesive, and the latter might be worth axing entirely as a collection of trivia. The citation style is mixed and some books lack page number cites. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
- Delist Executive summary: this is an incoherent article. I have not compared it yet with the original promotion that might be a point from which to start anew. the Roots of the conflict section is not supported by what follows - ie it is suggested that root of the conflict is ethnic (tribal) but the body of the article suggests that it is more socio-political (city communist v rural non-communist). There are clearly compounding events in neighbouring "countries" but the article does not present this context (eg the Namibia-South Africa-Angola dynamic). The article describes three main divisions to the conflict. Arguably, each phase should be dealt with as: issues, conflict, resolution and analysis (or similar). However, the article structure does not follow this but is decadic. This is the top level article for the conflict. It should deal with events at the top level in detail. It doesn't. At places, it reports "support" by other nations without describing the nature of such support. At other places, it reports minutiae (events) without establishing context - eg, how is fleeing 60 km relevant to the greater scheme of things? The article is visually/spatially inadequate. Many places are mentioned but their spatial significance is not established. Then, we have an infobox from hell. It tries to capture too much and fails to capture anything. I could perhaps be a bit more specific but much less brief. Cinderella157 (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.