Talk:Geneva Conference (1976)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Geneva Conference (1976) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Geneva Conference (1976) has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 8, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Zimbabwe: Rhodesia High‑importance

Geneva Conference (1976) is within the scope of WikiProject Zimbabwe, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Zimbabwe and Zimbabwe-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.ZimbabweWikipedia:WikiProject ZimbabweTemplate:WikiProject ZimbabweZimbabwe articles

High

This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is supported by Rhodesia task force (assessed as High-importance).

WikiProject Zimbabwe open tasks:

Tasks clipboard

Zimbabwe-related tasks

You can help!

Zimbabwe

Requests: Ruwa Scout Park, Central African Jamboree, Bulawayo Asian Civil Rights League, Rhodesia Bantu Voters Association, Nyasaland Chiefs Conference, Nyasaland African National Congress, Monarchy of Rhodesia, more...
Stubs: Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, Econet Wireless, Khame Ruins, Wildlife of Zimbabwe Category:Zimbabwe stubs
Category sorting:
Verify or Factual Accuracy:
Update:
NPOV :
Citations:
Copyedit, Style or Cleanup:
Expand:
Related Wikiprojects: Wikipedia:WikiProject Zimbabwe - Zimbabwe-related topics notice board - Collaboration Project

view • edit • discuss • history • watch

Africa Mid‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cold War (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cold War, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Cold WarWikipedia:WikiProject Cold WarTemplate:WikiProject Cold WarCold War articles

Switzerland Low‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is written in South African English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

GA Review[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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Geneva Conference (1976)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) 01:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I shall be reviewing this article against the Good Article criteria, following its nomination for Good Article status.

Disambiguations: none found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linkrot: no dead links found. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Checking against GA criteria[edit]

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
''In an effort to topple the government and introduce majority rule by force, the two most prominent black communist parties,[3] the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) and the Zimbabwe African People's Union Were these parties in fact communist, I can't check the source, but feel I should check this.
They were, quite unequivocally. The opening paragraph of the "chimurenga war communiqué" (issued by ZANU in 1974) that is referenced is as follows:

The revolutionary drive to eliminate settler oppression, imperialism and capitalism, the achievement of independence and freedom in Zimbabwe is gaining ground. The balance of power is shifting in favour of revolutionary forces. Each day the forces of liberation and progress are gaining strength and experience while the forces of fascism meet setback after setback and resort to naked mass murder, terror, destruction of villages, crops, property and animals of innocent people.
— ZANU, 1974

Both guerrilla groups sent their cadres on extended training courses to the USSR, China, North Korea, Cuba and so forth. They wore hammers and sickles and/or red stars on their caps. They read Lenin and Marx obsessively. Each of the two major nationalist parties announced its intention to form a one-party communist state in the early 1960s; one, ZANU, became aligned to China and Maoism, while ZAPU took a pro-Soviet line. "Comrade" was the term of address for guerrilla fighters from both parties' military wings when in the field. Members of both parties attended conferences and so forth with nameplates also marked "Comrade" throughout the conflict. Actually, even today government and military officials in Zimbabwe are referred to as "Comrade": at election time the posters beseech you to "vote for Cde. Robert Mugabe". —Cliftonian (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem, just wished to check. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prose is good, compliant with key elements of MoS
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
On-line references check out, I assume good faith for offline sources, no evidence of OR.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
Good coverage, no unneccessary detail.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
NPOV
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
stable
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Images suitably licensed, with captions.
Overall:
Pass/Fail:
One query to be addressed, on hold for seven days. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good to go, I am happy to list this. Jezhotwells (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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.