This peer review discussion has been closed.
This article had a peer review four months ago here. I've addressed all the points that were raised in that, including a rewrite of the article lead and part of "History", and I'm now relisting it to get feedback on the latest version. As before, I hope to push for WP:FA (or, if that fails, for WP:GA) once it is felt to be up to scratch.
I have also requested a copyedit at WP:GOCE, as I'm sure my prose will need a bit of glamming up!
Hey mate, thanks for the time and effort that you have clearly poured into this article. I like to pretend that I make a difference by writing articles that are of interest to small handful of people, but an article like this is clearly the real deal. Here are some ways that you can improve the article:
Resolved comments
While the first sentence of the lead is well-chosen, it should not exist as a standalone paragraph. In general, try to avoid one- and two-sentence paragraphs, though I don't see any other instances of this issue in the article.
Fixed — I have merged the opening spiel with the next paragraph. — Amakuru (talk) 12:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Rwanda is located a few degrees south of the Equator, and borders Uganda to the north, Tanzania to the east, Burundi to the south, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the west." I think that "borders" should be replaced by "is bordered by" to keep the relative geography consistent.
Avoid WP:OVERLINKING. I notice that Kigali is linked twice in the first main paragraph of the lead.
"Drums were of great importance in the King's court, while the most famous traditional dance is the highly-choreographed Intore." The word "while" suggests a contrast between these two elements, but there really isn't any reason to set up a contrast here. I suggest replacing "while" with "and".
"Rwanda ... has recently joined the East African Community and the Commonwealth of Nations... the government has increased the health budget in recent years." Avoid phrasing that includes "recent" per WP:As of. The problem is that the statement may not be accurate a few years from now, but no one will have thought to update the sentence accordingly.
Not sure — Odd, but true. The population is spread evenly across the country with few gaps (you might almost say the whole country is an enormous "urban" area, but of course the lifestyle is rural not urban). The citation for this point is [1] which reiterates this point. Do you think I need to phrase it any differently? — Amakuru (talk) 12:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I don't think it needs to be phrased any differently, I just wanted to check with you to make we've got all the facts straight. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The population is young and predominantly rural, with a density amongst the highest in Africa." This strikes me as odd. Urban areas tend to be more densely populated than rural areas, so if the population is predominantly rural, then how is it possible that the country is among the most densely populated in Africa?
Perhaps I'm missing something here, but I've noticed that there is a footnote at the bottom of the infobox, but I don't see a corresponding "1" to indicate what statistic(s) the note refers to. Perhaps it was accidentally deleted in a previous edit?
Not sure — The footnote applies to the population figure, and is directly lifted from the CIA source [2]. This raises two questions: (1) is the text copyrighted, and (2) do we need to include it in the infobox? I am not sure of the answer to either at the moment, but could maybe do more research. — Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While it may be possible that material from the CIA world factbook is public domain, I honestly don't think that the infobox really benefits from the inclusion of this note. I would think that explanatory notes for the infobox should only be used when there is a significant risk of the reader misinterpreting a statistic, but I don't see that as being the case here. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 04:01, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Germany colonised Rwanda from 1884, followed by Belgium from 1916" Perhaps I'm misinterpreting something, but I think these dates should either be given as ranges (such as "Germany colonised Rwanda from 1884 to 1912") or the "from"s should be changed to "in"s.
Fixed — changed "from" to "in" and restructured sentence slightly — Amakuru (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The country is relatively corruption-free" What does this even mean? Relative to other African nations? Or relative to previous points in Rwandan history?
Primarily relative to other Sub-Saharan African nations. I have altered the lead sentence to:
"The country has low corruption levels relative to other Sub-Saharan African countries"
and the corresponding entry in the "Politics and government" section to:
"Rwanda has low corruption levels; in 2010, Transparency International ranked Rwanda as the 66th cleanest out of 178 countries in the world, and 8th out of 47 in Sub-Saharan Africa"
Let me know if you think that's better. — Amakuru (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Here's one possibility: Take the most recently joined organization (I don't know which that is) and place it at the end of a list like this: "Rwanda is a member of the United Nations, La Francophonie, the East African Community and, since 2003, the Commonwealth of Nations". You dig?
"The quality of healthcare is generally low, but the government has increased the health budget in recent years." Another instance of "recent" that we missed.
Fixed — I have hopefully now removed all such incidences from the whole article. — Amakuru (talk) 12:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"An alternative theory is that the migration was slow and steady, with incoming groups integrating into rather than assimilating the existing society" What is the difference between integrating and assimilating? I had thought that the two terms were interchangeable.
Fixed — I think I had intended the two phrases to have an opposite direction, i.e. the incoming groups *assimilated* the existing population (active), versus the incoming groups *integrated into* the existing population. It is obviously unclear, however, so I have changed the "assimilated" to "conquered" which is less ambiguous. — Amakuru (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Rwanda, ruled by the Tutsi Nyiginya dynasty" It's not clear if this refers to the Kingdom of Rwanda or modern-day Rwanda. I suspect the former.
Fixed — you suspect correctly. Clarified it. — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"...expanded the kingdom to the shores of Lake Kivu and north into what is now Uganda." It would be helpful and more consistent to give the direction to the lake: "...expanded the kingdom [east/west/bacon] to the shores of Lake Kivu and north into what is now Uganda.
Questions that are left unanswered by the lead: What kind of government does Rwanda have / what is the distribution of power within the Rwandan government? Is the nation a member of United Nations?
Not sure —
What government/distribution of power: Is this not dealt with in the last paragraph of the lead? Power lies firmly in the hands of the President. What other information would you like to see in this paragraph (bearing in mind that it can't get too long...)?
One could make the claim that power lies firmly in the hands of the President of the United States as well. Clearly this statement is open for interpretation, as the term "President" may have very different meanings in different systems of government. Just some indication of the structure of the government or the nature of its checks and balances (if any) would be helpful here.
Mmm... I'm going to have to think about this one a bit more, because although there are a lot of notional checks and balances, sources don't agree on whether they're actually effective. I will try to put some balanced NPOV spiel about it later. — Amakuru (talk) 09:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done ?? — I've added a couple of sentences to the beginning of the paragraph describing the presidential system. See if that does the job for you... it's difficult to express the full situation without going on far too long for a lead. — Amakuru (talk) 22:44, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely better, though now the "power lies firmly in the hands of the President" sentence seems a bit redundant. Perhaps that sentence could be replaced by "The current president is Paul Kagame of the RPF party." or something similar. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've done that. I guess the point I was trying to convey is that although the constitution does provide for a powerful President (as in the US), in this case the incumbent is especially powerful as he effectively controls all the different organs of the state, not just his own office. But it's difficult to summarise that in a lead, so probably the current arrangement is fine. — Amakuru (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In the discussion of clans in the History section, it would be helpful to include a rough estimate of the size of these clans. Some readers might assume each clan was comprised of a handful of families, some might assume each clan had several thousand members.
Done ?? — I'm not sure of the actual numbers of people in each clan, although my main source says there were twenty in Rwanda, so I've included that. This at least gives the idea that they are a largish unit. Is that OK? — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I definitely agree that specifying the number of clans would be helpful, I think the phrase "Clans existed across the Great Lakes region, with around twenty in present-day Rwanda." wrongly implies that there are 20 clans that currently exist. Better would be "Clans existed across the Great Lakes region, with around twenty that existed in the area that is now Rwanda" or something similar. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Gustav Adolf von Götzen became the first European to significantly explore the country in 1894" von Götzen was the governor of East German Africa, was he not? It seems odd to introduce his name here without mentioning this fact. Incorporating this into the sentence in question would help to diminish the feeling of "who the heck is this umlauted weirdo?"
Done - Heh heh. Actually he was not Governor at the time of the exploration, he was merely an explorer on one of those expeditions to travel from the east coast down the Congo to the west coast, or whatever the vogue was at the time. He became Governor later on, but I've added a couiple of sentences to clarify these points. — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"the League of Nations declared Rwanda a mandate territory and asked Belgium to govern" The verb "asked" seems weird in this context. How exactly does an organization "ask" something from a country? Questions are asked and answered by people. This phrasing also leaves out the implied intermediate step in which Belgium accepts control of Rwanda. Proposed phrasing: "the League of Nations declared Rwanda a mandate territory under the control of Belgium."
Done — I'm happy with that wording. The source actually says Belgium was "entrusted" with the territory. Interesting wording all round... (which reminds me, I was supposed to be re-citing a few more of those Briggs & Booth references with more academic refs as an earlier reviewer was uncomfortable with it as a reliable source; I will get on to that when time permits) — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Germany appointed a Resident for Rwanda; German missionaries and military personnel began to arrive in the country." When was this?
Done — that would be 1907 according to the august source. — Amakuru (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good, but now the temporal relationship between the second clause and the first is not clear. Perhaps the highlighted phrase should be appended with "shortly thereafter"? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Hutu activists killed hundreds of Tutsis and caused more than 100,000 to become refugees in neighbouring countries." These numbers simply do not match up. Assuming that "hundreds" means "between 100 and 1000", how is it even possible that 100,000 Tutsis would even be aware of the fact that "hundreds" had been killed? Even with today's standards of communication through traditional news services and social media, there's no way that the death of a few hundred people would cause 100,000 to flee.
Not sure — a lot of the sources I have refuse to actually give a figure for the death toll from the revolution, although the figure of 100,000-150,000 exiled seems much more certain. The one source that does attempt it is this page: [3] from the Mahmood Mamdani book. However, I am not sure what the figures it talks about are. My best interpretation is that only 200 were killed between 1959 and 1961 (that's what it seems to be saying), but anything from 700 to 20,000 were killed in the years from 1963 onwards (i.e. after the bulk of the refugees left). So perhaps the current sentence is not wrong after all, but probably needs quite a lot of rephrasing to make some sense of the situation. Any thoughts? — Amakuru (talk) 22:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We may be able to sidestep the issue and simplify the phrasing at the same time: "Tension between the two groups escalated through the 1950s, culminating in the 1959 wind of destruction: Hutu activists began killing Tutsis, forcing more than 100,000 to seek refuge in neighbouring countries." Government suppression insures that we'll never know how many Tutsis were actually killed, so in this case it may actually make sense to let the phrasing be somewhat ambiguous. Thoughts? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - seems a reasonable phrasing to me. Am I accepting your wording too readily, or is it just that it's very good wording?! — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the latter. Writing skillz: I has them. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 18:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Tension between the two groups escalated through the 1950s, culminating in the 1959 wind of destruction:" While the wikilink makes it apparent that the term "wind of destruction" has a particular meaning in this context, people using screen readers or plaintext copies of the article might not understand why such an informal-sounding phrase is being used here. I suggest either putting it in quotations or replacing it with Rwandan revolution.
Done - replaced with Rwandan Revolution (capitalisation as per French Revolution). I've also moved the article similarly as the name was queried during the previous peer review too. I think "wind of destruction" is a translation from the Kinyarwanda word "muyaga" which is the common name for it in vernacular. — Amakuru (talk) 12:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"In 1973 Juvenal Habyarimana staged a military coup and became President. Several top-ranking officials were killed, including Kayibanda and his wife. Habyarimana claimed the government had become too corrupt, ineffective, and violent." It seems odd to mention the coup but not give reasons for it until a few sentences later. How about this: "In 1973 Juvenal Habyarimana, who claimed that the government had become too corrupt, ineffective, and violent, staged a military coup and became President. Several top-ranking officials were killed, including Kayibanda and his wife."
I don't know what made me think of this just now, but the lead should definitely have a pronunciation guide for "Rwanda". There may be some ambiguity in the correct pronunciation of "Rw", particularly for readers who have never heard the name spoken aloud. "Ruh-won-duh", "Urr-won-duh", and "Roo-on-duh" are all plausible pronunciations for a first-time reader.
"Rwanda's population had increased from 1,595,000 people in 1934 to 7.1 million in 1989" It is somewhat confusing (both as a reader and as an editor) to have one figure written out completely and the other shortened to just two significant digits. I suggest replacing the first with "1.6 million", as it's probably just an estimate anyway.
"Rwabugiri's changes caused a rift to grow between the Hutu and Tutsi populations" I suspect there may not be a simple answer to this question, but how do the Twas fit into all of this? So far I've learned that, at this point in history, the Tutsis ruled, the Hutus were essentially slaves, and the Twas... ate bagels? Here's another example from later on: "Two rival groups emerged, the Tutsi elite who favoured early independence under the existing system, and the Hutu emancipation movement led by Grégoire Kayibanda, which sought an end to "Tutsi feudalism""
The general answer to this is that the Twas (who were limited by this time to fringe areas of the country anway) were largely forgotten about and had, if anything, an even lower status than the Hutus. I will attempt to provide more context on this shortly, however. Thanks for the tip — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done (maybe) - the following new sentences about the Twa have been inserted:
The forest-dwelling Twa lost much of their habitat and were forced to move on to the slopes of mountains. (paragraph 1)
The Twa were better off than in pre-Kingdom days, with some becoming dancers in the royal court,[11] but their numbers continued to decline (paragraph 2)
The Twa remained marginalised, and by 1990 were almost entirely forced out of the forests by the government; many became beggars. (paragraph 6)
Many Twa were also killed, despite not being directly targeted. (paragraph 7)
It's hard to do any more than this as their story is not really woven in with the Hutu/Tutsi story - they were always on the fringes, always marginalised, and not active politically at all. Let me know how this looks. — Amakuru (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"This classification was often based arbitrarily on physical characteristics or wealth." I had heard of these arbitrary distinctions prior to reading this article, but I do have one question now that I have a bit more background information: If the individuals of Rwanda already identified themselves as Tutsis, Hutus, and Twas, why would there be the need to divide people up based on arbitrary characteristics? Assuming I'm interpreting this correctly, perhaps the following phrase would help to clarify the issue: "Although many Rwandans had already identified themselves as members of one particular group, the official classifications were often based on arbitrary physical characteristics or wealth."
Removed — I've decided to remove this line altogether actually. This issue was flagged up by BanyanTree in the previous peer review. At that time the line said "those owning ten or more cattle labelled Tutsi and others as Hutu", with a citation from the Briggs and Booth guidebook. This is actually an often bandied about headline fact, but the figures had ultimately has no factual certainty. Rereading the two sources at hand (Pottier 117-119 and Gourevitch 55-56), it is not even clear that the ID card determination was based on such factors at all. Pottier puts the story down to the politics of the modern government, while Gourevitch treats it as a "scientific study" carried out by the Belgians, rather than having any effect on the census.
The only other thing Gourevitch does mention is that the ID cards crystallised individuals' own identities, so where previously some limited crossing of the Hutu/Tutsi line was possible, after ID cards it was not. I haven't mentioned such crossings at all so far in the article. They were very limited, as I understand it, and usually only involved one or two Hutus gaining positions of exceptional power and being considered as honorary Tutsis, so I don't know if you think I need to? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:22, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if Gourevitch took the time to mention it, I suppose it wouldn't hurt to include it here. I think the simplest thing to do would be to add a sentence after the identity card sentence. My first attempt would be "While it had previously been possible for particularly affluential Hutus to become honorary Tutsis, the identification cards prevented any further movement between classes." Not perfect, but I'm sure you'll make it work. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - pretty much with your wording above, with a couple of tweaks — Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"but the RPF grew in strength and by 1992 a stalemate had developed." Two problems with the use of the word "stalemate". First, I've never heard it used outside the context of chess other than as a metaphor. Second, it's not clear what the word actually means here. My first guess is that a sort of equilibrium was reached in terms of the amount of territory controlled by each group, and neither side wanted to attack the other. Perhaps the two sides expended the majority of their military resources, after which neither side was able to effectively attack the other.
Not sure - what do you think of it now? This part of the History is incredibly complex and trying to sum it up in a few sentences is doing my head in a bit! To summarise what I understand from the sources:
The RPF invaded in 1990 and gained some territory through the surprise factor, but the death of their leader, French assistance to the government and possible disagreement over tactics led to their defeat.
They regrouped under Paul Kagame and laid low in the mountains until 1991.
Then they launched a surprise attack on Ruhengeri, held it for about a day and retreated again
1991 was a year of guerrilla war with the RPF gradually gaining territory until they had a 32km strip of land on the northern border. They could not, however, land any sort of decisive blow. Also, the areas they captured were almost empty of civilians - the Hutu majority fled south.
In 1992 the Rwandan government introduced multipartyism and a coalition government. This appears to have been due to (a) street demonstrations, (b) pressures due to the aforementioned Hutu displacement, (c) pressure from France
The opposition parties in the coalition government then began peace talks with the RPF, leading to an RPF ceasefire.
The talks stalled in early 1993, so the RPF began fighting again, doubling the amount of land controlled.
Finally, by August 1993, the two sides settled their diffefrences and agreement was signed.
However, in the midst of all this an extremist Hutu element had emerged which was excluded from the settlement. This eventually became the core of the genocide organisers.
Apologies for listing all this here, but maybe when you get back from your break you can have a look at the above and help me get a handle on which are the important elements we should keep (and if the current lines in the article do a good enough job of that). Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely looking better! I think "neither side was able to gain a decisive advantage." should be accompanied with some sort of time frame, such as "for several months" or whatever. I've made some minor tweaks myself, but other than that I think it looks good. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - for the next year and a half, neither side was able to gain a decisive advantage — Amakuru (talk) 08:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Tutsi RPF restarted their offensive, and took control of the country methodically by cutting off government supply routes and taking advantage of the deteriorating social order." How exactly did they take advantage of the deteriorating social order? This could mean any number of things, from hiding in abandoned houses to stealing bagels.
Not sure I'm not aware that they stole any bagels, although in 1997 a new company popped up in Kigali selling them in the country for the first time (cinammon, sesame seed etc) so perhaps a bagel mountain was formed at some point in the past.
On a more serious note I have modified the sentence to:
The Tutsi RPF restarted their offensive, and took control of the country methodically by cutting off government supply routes and encircling Kigali, taking advantage of the army's preoccupation with killing civilians.
I am not sure if this is any clearer than before, or whether it just introduces new ambiguity! — Amakuru (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bit about supply routes is definitely helpful, but the last clause has the same problem as the original sentence. While the army's genocidal preoccupations would have certainly been advantageous to the RPF, I don't see what they could have done to actively take advantage of this fact. Considering how long the sentence is already, it may be better to simple chop off the last clause. If the reader is hungry for more history, they can just read the daughter article. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:41, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I guess the point I was trying to get across is that the RPF met very little resistance in their taking of territory. I'm not sure if I could include that fact with no further context. I've removed it altogether for now anyway, as you suggest. — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"It replaced a transitional set of documents known as the Fundamental Law and provides a coalition government which had been in place since the RPF military victory in 1994." How is it possible that the constitution, which was installed in 2003, provided a coalition government which had been in place since 1994? Does the constitution time travel?
Fixed - He he, not really. I have tightened the wording around this (it was too verbose on the subject of the now defunct transitional constitution anyway), and attempted to link it through choice of words with the corresponding sentence in the history. — Amakuru (talk) 08:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The constitution provides for an Ombudsman, whose duties include prevention and fighting of corruption, and public officials (including the President) are required to declare their wealth." It is not clear to me how these two sentences are related. Are public officials required to declare their wealth to the Ombudsman?
Fixed - both to the Ombudsman and to the public. Have tried to clarify as such. — Amakuru (talk) 21:04, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is an inconsistency between the lead "Kagame and the RPF receive electoral support from across the community, although human rights organisations allege suppression of the opposition." and the body "The government has been criticised by some opposition figures and human rights groups for suppressing dissent in the country, particularly leading up to elections." Is the suppression a known fact or an allegation?
There is also a redundancy within the Politics section, which later mentions that "Human rights organisations allege that the government suppresses the freedoms of opposition groups by restricting candidacies in elections to government-friendly parties, suppressing demonstrations, and arresting opposition leaders and journalists." Do the allegations/criticisms need to be mentioned twice in the same section? Or am I mistaken in thinking that these sentences refer to the same thing?
Fixed - I have removed the first sentence so now the matter is concentrated solely in the paragraph about the RPF, which has a wording more closely matching the lead (including "alleged"). I have also removed a sentence about economic prosperity, tourism etc. as that is all convered in "Economy and infrastructure". This is replaced with a two word addition to the peace and stability mote. — Amakuru (talk) 17:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The Parliament, which consists of two chambers, makes legislation and has limited powers of oversight over the executive." What does "the executive" refer to? Perhaps it should be replaced with "the executive branch".
Done - I have replaced this with "the President and the Cabinet". No doubt then what you're talking about. — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"and the courts sometimes face pressure from the government" Pressure to do what? This is not a rhetorical question—as someone who has lived his entire live under a political rock, it really isn't clear to me what exactly this refers to.
Fixed (possibly) - I am not really an expert on "separation of powers" either, but I have heard the term bandied about here and there.... anyway, I've read a bit further into the source from HRW and attempted to expand the sentence concerned (while being careful to balance out HRW's negative points with some of their positive ones. So let me know if it makes any more sense now. — Amakuru (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article uses both "Tutsi" and "Tutsis" as plural forms, and the same is true for Hutu and Twa. Unless there's some reason to switch between the two (and perhaps there is, I wouldn't know the convention for tribal names), I suggest picking one form and making it consistent throughout the article.
Fixed - Tutsis / Hutus / Twas seems to be the most usual English form. — Amakuru (talk) 08:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"President Kagame's Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) has been the dominant political party in the country since 1994." This may mislead some readers to believe that Kagame has lead the party since 1994. Some may even misconstrue this as saying that Kagame founded the party in 1994. I think it would be safe to replace "President Kagame's" with "The", especially since the very next sentence mentions the presidency.
Not sure - I actually borrowed this phrasing from a similar paragraph in the Cameroon article, and actually the sense is the same. While Kagame (and, in the Cameroon case, President Biya) did not found the RPF, he is in almost complete control of the party now and actually has been since shortly after Fred Rwigema's death in 1990. While Kagame was not the de jure leader of the party until 2000, he was certainly the de facto leader of the party since 1990 and the country since 1994. I will give some more thought about how this might be phrased unambiguously, or if you have any ideas please let me know. — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it's necessary to go into all that detail about the relationship between Kagame and the RPF, at least not in this article. If someone wants to sort out this mess in Paul Kagame or Rwandan Patriotic Front, then they're welcome to it. My !vote is still to sidestep the issue with "The Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) has been the dominant..." --Cryptic C62 · Talk 16:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The districts, each run by a directly-elected council and executive committee, are responsible for coordinating public service delivery and economic development. The sectors, with a directly-elected council, are responsible for the delivery of public services as mandated by the districts and for coordinating community participatory development." These two sentences are too similar in their phrasing, which can detract from reading comprehension.
Fixed (maybe) - I have grouped the functions together as after an hour poring through numerous government PDFs it's still hard to sum up what these things do in one sentence; basically they just seem to be rungs in a ladder, each with a similar structure. Let me know if this is any good now or if I need to go away and think again. — Amakuru (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"carry out the delivery of community participatory development and prioritise people's needs" What in the wide world of sports does "the delivery of community participatory development" mean?
Fixed - hmm... your guess is as good as mine. I got that terminology from the source. Probably jargon borrowed by the civil servants from development workers, who themselves borrowed it from management consultants, with the true meaning becoming more obscure at each level. Anyway, this phrasing has gone with the above rewrite. — Amakuru (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Mountains dominate central and western Rwanda; the Albertine branch of the Great Rift Valley runs from north to south along the country's western border." These two clauses appear to have nothing to do with each other. The first one is about mountains, while the second is about a valley...? Or perhaps "branch" has a specific meaning in this context that I'm not aware of?
Fixed Actually they are connected; I have rephrased this to:
Mountains dominate central and western Rwanda; these mountains are part of a series of mountain chains which flank the Albertine branch of the Great Rift Valley; this branch runs from north to south along Rwanda's western border.
"and its source in Nyungwe Forest is a contender for the overall source of the Nile" What does this mean? Is it not yet known what is the overall source of the Nile? Or does "contender" have some specific meaning here?
Not sure - strangely enough, it is even today not known precisely where the source is, despite the hulaboo surrounding the issue in the 19th century. Speke and co were content to declare Lake Victoria and Owen Falls as the "true source" but neglected to consider that Lake Victoria itself has tributaries. The longest of these is clearly the Kagera River, but even this has two separate branches and here lies the unknown factor - is the Burundian branch or the Rwandan branch longer? They're pretty similar and (surprisingly, given satellite technlogy etc) I don't think anyone's measured it in enough detail to determine which is longer. Hence we have "contenders". If you can think of a better way of phrasing this, or think I should go into more detail on the origin of the debate within this article, then let me know. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:25, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would think that simply inserting the phrase "as-yet undetermined" would work. However, what you've written here seems to conflict with Nile, which lists the White Nile and the Blue Nile as the sources. This apparent inconsistency would be very confusing for readers... --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I've inserted your suggested wording. Regarding the Nile article, it's a while since I looked at that; basically the source in question is that of the White Nile, which is the longer of the two major branches (Blue and White). The section on White Nile formerly indicated something about the debate, but has since been changed to only show the Burundian source. I have now changed it again so it shows details of the debate, with relevant sources. From the New Vision source, it seems that there may even be no debate; the idea that it is Burundi stemmed from a statement someone made in 1955 referring to the *southern-most* source, but which was interpreted as referring to the *longest* source. Anyway, it's clearly best to mention both claims until the issue is decisively resolved. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 08:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Rwanda has a temperate tropical highland climate, with lower temperatures than is typical for equatorial countries due to the high altitude." This statement (and one later on in the article) seems to be written as though the reader has already been made aware of the high altitude, but as far as I can tell, this is the first mention. It leaves the reader wondering: How high above sea level is Rwanda?
Fixed - the last paragraph of Geography did already give some altitude figures for the mountainous west of the country, but you're correct that the overall high altitude had not been mentioned. I have attempted to rectify that with the following sentence in the opening Geography paragraph:
The entire country is at high altitude: the lowest point is the Ruzizi River at 950 metres (3,117 ft) above sea level.
I've not mentioned the highest point (Karisimbi at 4,507m), as it is already mentioned in the third paragraph. Incidentally, (and I never realised this before today), the figure of 950m for the lowest point is actually the second highest such figure for countries in the world according to List of countries by lowest point. I toyed with including that fact in the article, but thought perhaps it might be difficult to phrase it concisely; plus there is no direct reputable source that states the fact, you either have to use an illegal blog source such as [4] or rely on inferring the data by hand from a list source such as [5]. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if this is normal for country articles, but shouldn't the article mention something about the wildlife in Rwanda? I imagine it would fit in quite nicely with Geography and climate.
Done - Mmm, looks like some do and some don't. Anyway, I've written a few paragraphs on the matter and put it at the end of "Geography" as a "Biodiversity" subsection (this seems to be the accepted way to do it). I've also put the "Climate" part into a corresponding subsection too and renamed the whole to just "Geography".
The Biodiversity certainly needs a picture, so I will scout around for something suitable. In order to get the Hollywood factor (not permitted in the prose, I know, but perhaps we have some licence in image choice?) choices appear to be either a black and white Colobus monkey, a bird of some sort, or perhaps to move the Mountain gorilla image up from the "Tourism" area of Economy and think of something else to go there.
Anyway, let me know if you dig or any recommendations for change in the new prose. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is certainly much joyousness and digging to be had. The only problem I see is the phrase "Nyungwe Forest boasts thirteen primate species including chimpanzees and Ruwenzori colobus arboreal monkeys, which move in troops of up to 400 individuals." It's not clear if the size bit deals only with Ruwenzori colobus or with both animals. As for images, how about this one? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed - "Nyungwe Forest boasts thirteen primate species including chimpanzees and Ruwenzori colobus arboreal monkeys; the Ruwenzori colobus move in groups of up to 400 individuals, the largest troop size of any primate in Africa."
I've also put in your suggested photo. — Amakuru (talk) 13:35, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The currency is the Rwandan franc and the economy is managed by the central National Bank of Rwanda" While I don't want to unnecessarily inflate the Economy section, I do think it would be helpful to mention the relative strength of the Rwandan franc compared to either the USD or the Euro. I would assume that the relevant statistics for March 2011 are already available.
Not sure Are you referring to the value at a single point in time, e.g. As of March 2010, the value of the franc is xxx USD, or do you mean you want to see historical values as well? The latter would probably normally be put in a table, which would probably be overkill for this section, but let me know what you think anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 08:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was referring only to the present day value (or as recent as you can find). --Cryptic C62 · Talk 02:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The industrial sector is small and uncompetitive." It isn't clear what "uncompetitive" means in this context. One might assume that if businesses in the same industry are not competitive, then surely they must either cease to exist or resort to socialism. Perhaps competitiveness would be a helpful wikilink, though I don't know enough about economics to decide if that's what you're referring to here.
Fixed - Yeah, I'm not entirely sure either. Maybe it just means it doesn't compete well with other economic sectors, i.e. just another way of saying it's small. I don't suppose it's necessary anyway so I've removed it, and replaced it with a GDP percentage (which will also help with your other point below). — Amakuru (talk) 11:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"The country has no railways at present," As of when?
Fixed - as of 2011 — Amakuru (talk) 14:01, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"one million people are estimated to have visited the country in 2008, up from 826,374 in 2007" This is a bizarre comparison. How could there possibly exist such detailed statistics for 2007 but such a gross generalization for 2008?
Fixed - it seems the source for the 2008 figure was written at a time when the precise figure was not yet in. I have now updated it to show the precise number: 980,577, from another source. I guess the level of precision is there because it is some kind of officially measured quantity. I can't find any corresponding figures for 2009 or 2010 though. — Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Most Rwandans have access to radio, whereas television is restricted mostly to urban areas." Is it possible to concisely explain why this restriction exists? I can think of no reason why the government would only allow televisions in urban areas.
Fixed - this is obviously a poor or ambiguous use of words on my part... I was using "restricted" as a synonym for "confined" (the word used in the source), and did not intend to imply that the lack of TV access is an active policy. I have reworded it using the word "limited" instead, and folded the radio part into the previous sentence, so it now reads "Most Rwandans have access to radio and Radio Rwanda is the main source of news throughout the country. Television access is limited mostly to urban areas." How's that? — Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"they monitor governance and performance" Performance of what?
Fixed (maybe) - I have changed it to "they also monitor and evaluate the districts to ensure good governance"; this is the kind of woolly language present in the source so I'm not sure if there is much more that can be said on the matter...? — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Garr, wishy washy sources are such a pain. I would hope that the sources might elaborate on what "good" means. Active? Fair? Balanced? Open? If it's not possible to narrow it down any further, perhaps the best course of action would be to employ a direct quotation. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done quotations used; how this? — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The five provinces act as intermediaries between the national government and their constituent districts to ensure that national policies are implemented at the district level; the Ministry of Local Government's Rwanda Decentralization Strategic Framework also assigns to provinces responsibility for "coordinating governance issues in the Province," and "monitoring and evaluation."
The Economy section mentions that roughly 40% of the GDP is attributed to agriculture and 9% is attributed to animal husbandry. This leaves me wondering: what about the other 50%? I don't think it would be necessary to break down the GDP completely, but it does seem a bit fishy that more than half of the GDP is unaccounted for. On the other, it wouldn't be too hard to whip up a pie chart for something like this; I'd be happy to do it in Excel if you think it would help.
The addition of the industrial GDP contribution brings the total mystery GDP to 35%. This is definitely an improvement, though if there's an easy way to sneak a few other numbers to minimize this further, I think that would be solid. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is actually a work in progress. The true breakdown (according to the CIA world factbook) is: agriculture 42.1%, industry 14.3%, services 43.6%. So in fact the animal husbandry figure is a part of the wider agriculture figure, and the unmentioned part of the GDP is this "services" sector. I will have to do a bit more research to determine exactly what this consists of... — Amakuru (talk) 08:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done - I have now introduuced a new mini paragraph concerning services, along with its GDP percentage. And I've removed the specific figure for animal husbandry, which means the three GDP percentage figures shown throughout the section now add up to 100%. The only slight question mark is over what constitutes a "sector". The article now talks of the "services sector" but then in the next paragraph refers to the "tourism sector". The latter is a subset of the former so don't know if it's correct to call them both sectors. Do you think this is a problem? — Amakuru (talk) 18:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried my hand at merging the two paragraphs and rephrasing to avoid ambiguity. Happy clams? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 00:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
YHappy - yeah, that seems fine. The paragraph is a little on the long side (particularly as I have added a new sentence to give slightly more detail on services), but probably OK really. — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Rwanda is linked by road to other countries in East Africa, notably to the port of Mombasa via Kampala and Nairobi, which provides Rwanda's most important trade route." It's not clear what "which" refers to here. The current phrasing also implies that Mombasa is a country. Possible rephrasing: "Rwanda is linked by road to other countries in East Africa, such as Blah, Snargits, and Tingwalladoobop; Rwanda's most important trade route is the road (highway? roadway?) to the port of Mombasa via Kampala and Nairobi."
"the ballet, performed by women; the dance of heroes, performed by men; and the drums." Who plays the drums? The aliens?
Fixed - I think the drums were actually played by the hermaphroditic bagel eaters. Or perhaps just by the men (traditionally speaking anyway, given that the source I've found for this speaks of women breaking the trend in recent years). I've actually rewritten this part as on researching it again I found that the "intore" refers only to the dance of heroes component and not to the whole. See what you think now... — Amakuru (talk) 13:05, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Drummers usually play together in groups of seven or nine" Any idea why these numbers in particular are popular?
Fixed These appear to be optimal number for the range of pitches required by an ensemble. However, reading the source again, although it states "seven or nine" as if it's precisely one or the other, it later implies that any or all of the named pitches may be present in varying numbers. I have therefore modified it to:
Drummers play together in groups of varying sizes, usually between seven and nine in number; the soprano drum leads, with others of various pitches providing back up.
How does that look? — Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Any idea what percentage of Rwandans attend higher education?
Not sure - what sort of percentage is the most interesting here? I have figures for the total annual enrolment, but not sure what proportion of the population that should be considered against, for example as a proportion of all 18 year olds in a particular year? Or do you mean the total proportion of today's population who possess a tertiary education? Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first one that comes to mind is the percentage of the adult population that have college degrees. I think the CIA World Factbook may have something like this; I know the statistics are definitely available for the US. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 23:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not done Unfortunately I can't find that particular statistic anywhere, having looked for half an hour. I've found a document indicating that "2.7% of the workforce has a college degree"[1] but presumably the workforce in this context does not mean the whole population (I can't believe the figure would be that high otherwise). There's also this blog in the New York Times which gives the figure of 1 in 200 possessing a college degree, but no other source is given for this figure. I'm wondering therefore whether that is reliable enough for our purposes. For now I have inserted a figure for the gross enrolment ratio at tertiary level which, if I understand it correctly, is the ratio of total current university students of any age divided by the the population of tertiary education age. Not such an interesting figure, but it does seem to be one that's used quite a lot by the UN and others as an educational indicator. Let me know what you think anyway. — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"There is a shortage of staff, and some medicines are in short supply or unavailable" Staff where? Perhaps "qualified medical professionals" would be better.
Done - "There is a shortage of qualified medical professionals in the country" — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"HIV/AIDS seroprevalence is declining due to government policies; the rate is estimated at 3%" This smelled like propaganda, so I checked the source myself, which actually uses the word "epidemic". Where do you see anything about the the prevalence decreasing due to government policies? The only thing I'm seeing is that there has been an increase in the availability of resources like counseling and retroviral treatment, but that's not the same as decreasing prevalence.
Fixed - "HIV/AIDS seroprevalence in the country is classified by the World Health Organization as a generalized epidemic; an estimated 7.3% of urban dwellers and 2.2% of rural dwellers, aged between 15 and 49, are HIV positive."
"Unlike many countries in Africa, Rwanda has been a unified state since pre-colonial times with only one ethnic group, the Banyarwanda, and a shared language and cultural heritage" It's not clear which of these facts is unlike the other countries in Africa. Is Rwanda unusual because it has been a unified state since pre-colonial times? Is it unusual in that it has only one ethnic group? Or perhaps it is one of the few countries for which both statements are true?
Fixed (in a radical kind of way) - I started by expanding this paragraph to clarify the point you make, but then it occurred to me that stuff about ethnic groups and nation states belongs better in demographics than in culture. So I have now expanded paragraph 3 of demographics so it starts off "Rwanda has been a unified state since pre-colonial times with only one ethnic group, the Banyarwanda; this contrasts with the majority of modern African states, whose borders were drawn by colonial powers and did not correspond to ethnic boundaries or pre-colonial kingdoms. Within the Banyarwanda people, there are three separate groups....."
I have then modified the opening of culture so it reiterates this point briefly but only as far as it is relevant to culture: "The people of Rwanda form one ethnic group, the Banyarwanda, who have a shared language and cultural heritage dating back to the pre-colonial Kingdom of Rwanda."
Let me know whether you dig that. — Amakuru (talk) 12:40, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is one critical aspect of infrastructure that seems to be absent from the Economy and infrastructure section: Running water. Do they has?
Done - with knobs on :) - I have just added three new paragraphs relating to the economy/media/infrastructure section - telecommuncations, water supply/sanitation and electricity. So sorry - a bit more reading for you to do! We may also have to scan through to see if these are too hefty relative to the rest of the article (in particular the preceding paragraph on TV/radio/press now looks rather sparse). Let me know what you think about it all anyway! — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"increasing its share of the national budget." I feel like this needs either a percentage or an adverb to be a worthwhile phrase: "increasing its share of the national budget by #%" or "greatly increasing its share of the national budget."
Done - the source does not mention a percentage, but does use the word "significantly" so I've inserted that. — Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Despite favourable rainfall," What is favourable rainfall? Is this meant to distinguish the regular rain from acid rain?
Fixed "Despite rainfall exceeding 100 centimetres (39 in)* annually in many areas, little use is made of rainwater harvesting" — Amakuru (talk) 12:53, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Access to sanitation remains low, and the government has fewer policy measures in place to tackle this." First, fewer than what? Second, avoid the use of "tackle" unless the article in question is about football.
Fixed (maybe) "Access to sanitation remains low; the United Nations estimates that in 2006 34% of urban and 20% of rural dwellers had access to improved sanitation. Government policy measures to improve sanitation are limited, focussing only on urban areas." - I have restructured it slightly and replaced "fewer" with "limited" (the word actually used in the source). Let me know if acceptable. — Amakuru (talk) 12:15, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"A sharp drop in output from these stations" Very mysterious! Any idea what caused the drop in output?
Fixed - I have added clarification: "A combination of below average rainfall and human activity, including the draining of the Rugezi wetlands for cultivation and grazing, caused the two lakes' water levels to fall from 1990 onwards; by 2004 levels were reduced by 50%, leading to a sharp drop in output from the power stations. This, coupled with increased demand as the economy grew, precipitated a shortfall in 2004 and widespread loadshedding." — Amakuru (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"both of whom have won awards." This is a wee bit mysterious. What kinds of awards were these?
Fixed Well. Here's an interesting story... the awards were actually the Salax awards, some kind of Rwandan equivalent of the Grammy Awards perhaps. But since I wrote that line, The Ben and Meddy have apparently gone AWOL during a visit to the United States last summer and have not been seen since! Funny that despite being a celebrity in Rwanda, and presumably wealthy as a result, the lure of the underground life of an illegal immigrant in the US is still greater.
Anyway, I have now removed that line and replaced it with the top 10 artists as judged by a panel in an ongoing competition. I have checked with some contacts in Rwanda and it seems that this list is fairly representative of the musicians currently in fashion over there. I'm a little unsure if this is the best way to represent the information - it is rather redlink overload at present, but reducing it to a smaller number (at least until the competition is complete) would be rather arbitrary. Let me know if you're happy with it as is, or if you can suggest any improvement. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:51, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections to the extensive use of redlinks. I am generally a fan of redlinks because they point the ways in which Wikipedia is incomplete and, to some extent, biased in its coverage. I do have a slight objection to list itself, as I don't think it really conveys anything useful about the culture of Rwanda. Imagine if the Kinyarwanda article on the United States used the top 10 finalists of the most recent American Idol or America's Got Talent competitions to determine who should be mentioned in the culture section. That would just be silly! I think it might be best to just leave out any list of musicians until/unless you can find some sources that clearly indicate which musicians are actually prominent there.
In any case, this is an issue that would probably benefit from the insight of multiple editors. Seeing as all of my points have been addressed, might I suggest we venture onwards to WP:FAC? --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:06, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've removed the list for now. I can always revisit that point later on. And yes, I'm ready to get going on a FAC if you are. I'll get some bagels in and a bucket and spade, and prepare for the barrage of comments! Thanks again for all your assistance with this. — Amakuru (talk) 20:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bring the clams and the pepper spray. Let's get 'er dun! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 21:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may want to make this peer review a pet project of mine, so I'll be checking back and leaving more comments if you find them helpful. Cheers! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 03:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, and thanks for your useful advice so far. — Amakuru (talk) 23:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be bopping around the world for the week of March 4, and I probably won't have time to edit during my adventure. I'll try to leave some juicy comments for you to sink your teeth into before I leave. If that doesn't happen, just imagine what I would say, imagine how you would respond, and then edit the article accordingly. :P --Cryptic C62 · Talk 01:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Great, have fun on your bopping then. And if you find yourself in Rwanda, see if you can dig up any facets of the country that I have omitted. Looking forward to the juicy comments... just hoping one of them won't be "you mention that Hutus started killing Tutsis in 1959, but you fail to give a figure for the number of deaths". — Amakuru (talk) 13:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed Well. Here's an interesting story... the awards were actually the Salax awards, some kind of Rwandan equivalent of the Grammy Awards perhaps. But since I wrote that line, The Ben and Meddy have apparently gone AWOL during a visit to the United States last summer and have not been seen since! Funny that despite being a celebrity in Rwanda, and presumably wealthy as a result, the lure of the underground life of an illegal immigrant in the US is still greater.