Talk:Abir Congo Company/GA1

GA Review[edit]

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

Reviewer: Roisterer (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. I've reviewed a couple of articles over the years and I'll take a look and hopefully come back with some comments in the next day or so. Cheers. --Roisterer (talk) 11:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a first read, it is a very good article and I can find little wrong with it. I made some minor changes to spelling and grammar (which you may want to check in case I've done something to completely change the meaning of the article.)

The couple of minor issues that I have found:

Under "Origins", Congo Free State is listed as being in "Southern Africa", although it is later referred to as being in central Africa and a look at a map seems to place it in central Africa.

Yep, it is more of a Central African country, fixed - Dumelow (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a reference for Congo Free State's international recognition?

I have clarified this section and added a ref (to the New York Times) - Dumelow (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Establishment", you state that North supplied £40,000 out of 250,000 fr. Could you show what % of 250,000 fr £40,000 is, so we're comparing apples with apples?

Yeah it would be handy, but I have been unable to find any way of converting between the values of the two countries in 1892 (I looked when I wrote it and have checked again now) - Dumelow (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few red links in the article. I shall have to find what the rules are regarding red links in GA articles (although you probably know better than me).

I too am ignorant of the GA guidelines regarding red links. The article does have a lot of them (11) but almost all are places or rivers in the Congo. I could probably create some of the articles and reduce their number but it would take me a little while. I know that at FAC a small number of red links isn't a problem (one of my FAs had two when promoted) but they'd probably baulk at 11! - Dumelow (talk) 18:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Decline and abuse of power", could you provide references for the statements regarding the number of plants, agents, the two years agents spent at the post and that some plantations existed only on paper.

Done - Dumelow (talk) 18:09, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also under "Decline and abuse of power", could you provide a reference for 1,000 people captured and sent to labour camps and the others fleeing to Tshuapa?

Done - Dumelow (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Under "Attempts of reform", why was the appointment of a soldier of fortune considered a reform?

I have added some more info on this from various sources, hopefully it seems more of a sensible move now - Dumelow (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned, these are fairly minor. I'm going togo through and check links and so forth but I can't see anything stopping this from gaining GA status. Cheers.--Roisterer (talk) 10:38, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a look through the links, images and whatnot and can't find anything amiss. Beyond the minor issues of the franc/pound exchange rate and the redlinks, I think it is an excellent article and is worthy of GA status. Top job! --Roisterer (talk) 11:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your thorough review (and for passing it!) - Dumelow (talk) 11:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]