# Talk:Rwandan Revolution

Wikipedia:Canada Education Program/Courses/The World since 1789 (Stéphane-D. Perreault)/Articles
It was required that on November 15th we were to have posted our draft articles up to be peer reviewed. There is no recent editing on this article at all so doing the whole peer review thing is kind of difficult but here is what I came up with, I hope it helps and good luck!
The first thing I would like to note is that the article does not have anywhere near the word requirements, but once it is started on, that will obviously improve. I believe it is quality, not quantity. Don’t just go on about something irrelevant to the article to reach the word count, staying on topic is key at this point. It is not thorough enough to be a reliable source for any reader yet, but once again, that will be improved once there are changes made. For the amount of information in the article at this point in time, the amount of references is sufficient but as the article grows, more will need to be added along with the information. It would be a good idea to add in headings to organize the article a little more and to help the readers navigate to where they want to be. I would suggest playing around with the formulas on changing the font, making headings and adding links in your sandbox. I found it really helped me and after a short while I was capable of doing the formulas on my own without even looking at the former examples. Another thing I found very helpful was when I found something important like a name or a date, I made sure it was correct by looking at another source and comparing the two. It would be nice to see more information regarding who was involved, who was in charge, the exact location, more detail on the battle itself, the cause of the battle, the aftermath, and as much background information as you could possibly find. When you are putting in the information however, be careful that you do not plagiarize. Reference things and give credit to those who deserve it! Try not to be bias in the article, it will not look very good for you when people read it. Research is very important, the more information you can get to describe the topic, the better. You can never have too many facts.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Molenchuk (talk • contribs) 02:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC) 

I've been working myself to develop the article, and I can see someone else also wrote a considerable amount. His edit was deleted however. I'm not sure what the grounds were for deletion. Im restoring the edits by merging the existing and current article. It was sourced, and it doesnt seem that the content is untrue. I hope someone else will read the article and comment on the updates. Ottawakismet (talk) 16:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

That edit was done by the sockpuppet of a banned user. It appears that account's edits were reverted per Wikipedia:Deny recognition. Please vet the content before you add it in to ensure there is no misinformation or sneaky vandalism. —maclean (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

@Charles Essie: - thanks for coming by and putting the tags on the top of the article, and just to let you know that I am actively working on this page at the moment. So far I've focussed on some of the background and prelude to the revolution, which has led to the lopsided structure in which the related fluff occupies more space than any commentary on the revolution itself. I very much hope that I will be able to rectify this over time, hopefully in the next couple of months. Thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Before independence, to the best of my knowledge, the idea of Rwanda and Burundi did not exist - Ruanda and Urundi did! Would it not make sense to use terms which had contemporary meaning throughout the article? —Brigade Piron (talk) 08:35, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Brigade Piron:, I think this is really just a question of spelling and orthography. The terms "Ruanda" and "Urundi" were coined by Germany (I think) when they colonised, but were based on the precolonial names for the Kingdom of Rwanda and Kingdom of Burundi. The two words here are taken from the local languages. I doin't know how the colonies and their predecessors were known in English sources at the time (I haven't had access to many of those), but a majority of modern English sources do use "Rwanda" and "Burundi" when referring to the precolonial kingdoms. For example: [1]. I think a bit more explanation in the text might be in order though, I've noticed the term "Ruanda-Urundi" only appears as a main topic, not in the prose, that's something I'll look into clarifying.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Amakuru:! Fantastic work on the article. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Incidentally, I've made some cosmetic changes to the prose and added a picture. I hope you don't object! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:21, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: No, that's fine, thanks for assisting! I'm not quite sure about the RPF / FPR thing though... the books I have on the subject all call it "Rwandan Patriotic Front" (or "Rwandese Patriotic Front" in the case of the Gerard Prunier book), with the initials "RPF". This is consistent with it being founded in an English speaking country, although confusingly the flag does spell it "FPR", perhaps as a means of appealing more to the French speaking population in Rwanda at the time of the civil war. Anyway, more generally, I'm hoping to have a run at WP:GA with this shortly, and maybe then onto WP:FA. Do you think it's ready for that yet? Are there any sections that need expanding or changing, in your view? Thanks again!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I don't think there should be any problem getting the article to GA without content change. I worry that it might be a bit cursory for FA though. Good luck! —Brigade Piron (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
@Brigade Piron: yes, I see what you mean, looking at it now. I guess each of the subsections in the Revolution section could be expanded by a couple of paragraphs for completeness. Thakns  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rwandan Revolution/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Whizz40 (talk · contribs) 23:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
1. This article is written in an encyclopaedic style. It is coherent, concise, clear and complies with the MoS. Most of the article is written in British English, except "Colonization" which is used as a sub-section heading and needs correcting for consistency. Two further small corrections are needed: "Begium's" and "centralistion". 
Question: should the first sentence mention the end of colonial rule as part of the description of the Revolution? In other words, it that central to the definition of the Revolution or is it more a consequence of the Revolution.

Some ideas on wording to be considered at the discretion of the regular editors; these changes are not required for GA status because it is already well written:
Lead
Germany and Belgium successively --> Germany and subsequently Belgium
agitated for speedy independence to cement their power --> agitated for independence from Belgium to cement their power
sub-chief --> replace with plain English in the Lead (e.g. local elder or local leader) and explain the meaning in the body of the article
Logiest and Hutu leader --> Logiest, now the special civil resident, and Hutu leader
Colonization section
Leopold II --> Belgian king Leopold II
2. The article is well referenced with page numbers and links to reliable sources. Following a careful read through of the article and spot checks of sources, there are no indications of any concerns in terms of accuracy, original research or copyright, although not every fact and source could be checked. In addition, I see the Nominator requested a Peer Review for the article. 

Idea: nominating the article for WP:DYK could generate further review if GA status is attained.
3. As required by the criteria, the article is broad in its coverage, addresses the main aspects of the topic; and stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail. I see there has been discussion, collaboration and challenge among editors on the talk page and the nominator's talk page which can contribute to a well-written article. 

Idea for working toward A-class: more context, description or quotes about the actual events experienced by the people involved, ordinary and prominent, could help inform the reader.
4. The article is neutral in my view; I think the article demonstrates this well in terms of the structure and content, which is important given the topic. If there are omissions from the article that affect neutrality, I would not be aware of them, but given what is presented is coherent and appears complete, there is nothing to indicate this might be a concern. 
5. The article has been written in under 150 edits since 2010 by a lead editor with about three other main editors contributing and about 40 distinct editors in total. There have been about 40 edits this month by three editors, including formal copyediting with discussion on the Talk page; all look constructive and the article looks stable.
6. The article has a useful infobox and is illustrated with five images; four of these are described as own work or public domain and the image of the coins says the permission has been archived. 

Idea for working toward A-class: more images or illustrations of the central events and actors, and perhaps a map to indicate the geography.
Whizz40 (talk) 23:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


### Responses
Colonization → Colonisation: Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
centralistion → centralisation: Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
Begium's → Belgium's: Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:26, 11 March 2015 (UTC)
On the question:
should the first sentence mention the end of colonial rule as part of the description of the Revolution? In other words, it that central to the definition of the Revolution or is it more a consequence of the Revolution.
I have changed the lede slightly so the first paragraph is two sentences summing up the most important aspects, namely the transition from Tutsi monarchy to Hutu republic, and the transition from colony to independence. Independence would have happened at some point anyway, but I do also think it's central to the definition. Let me know what you think of this change.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:44, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
This is much a clearer introduction to the lead in my view, especially for readers new to the topic. With this done, I can go ahead and complete the Review. Whizz40 (talk) 06:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)


### Review summary
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, no copyvios, spelling and grammar):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

An interesting and important article. I'll list it under World history: African history. Whizz40 (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
@Whizz40: thanks for doing this review, and I'm glad you found the article interesting! All the best  — Amakuru (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Anyone able to confirm this?
In 1958 the Belgian colonial ministry tried to strip Rudahigwa of his power, reducing him to a figurehead, but his popularity with the regional chiefs and the Tutsi (who feared the growing Hutu movement) sparked a series of strikes and protests.
Unfortunately, p.257 is missing from the preview, but although p.258 mentions a strike, and a protest, it doesn't sound like they were because Tutsi chiefs were concerned about moves to marginalise Rudahigwa.
I've not seen mention elsewhere of the attempt to reduce the king to a figurehead in 1958.  Bromley86 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

@Bromley86: unfortunately I don't have that book to hand - I originally sourced those passages from a copy at the British Library two years ago. If I get the chance soon, I@ll go back and try to verify what it says. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
@Bromley86: I've had a chance to look at the page in question now, and it is reproduced here: [2]. The particular line in question says "Although the Belgians decided that Rudahigwa should 'reign and not rule', the decision was difficult to implement." This is cited to a G. Mosmans, who is also mentioned on the same page. Although the protests weren't directly about the attempt to sideline Rudahigwa, the Tutsi conservative movement apparently resulted from increasing hostility by the Belgian administration towards the king and the Tutsi court. If you think any of this is misrepresented in the article, pleae let me know. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Jaztie não é árabe: I'm commenting here to explain my reversion of your addition of the conflict infobox in more depth. To be frank, my familiarity with the Rwandan Revolution and related events is somewhat spotty, but I did write the articles on the Coup of Gitarama (which was arguably the climax of the revolution) and the later Bugesera invasion (a disastrous attempt to undo it). The use of the conflict infobox I think is too reductive and, deployed as it was, misleading on several key points. Firstly, by portraying this as a pseudo-military conflict (which the choice of infobox implies), it suggests that this resembled a war, which I think is too simplistic. Secondly, you categorized the country of Belgium and Colonel Guy Logiest as a "belligerents" alongside Kigeli and Logiest. A reading of the article, or even the third paragraph of the lede, would demonstrate that this is simply incorrect. The Belgians suppressed both movements and their violent actions early on but, by the end, the colonial authorities and Logiest were acting in ways which strongly favored the Hutu revolutionaries and deprecated the royalists (and they conceded as much). The opinion of the Belgian government is Brussels at this time is a little more unclear. I don't know why you chose to restore this blatantly wrong information when you reverted my removal. Furthermore, your citations for the "casualties" are imprecise, making it difficult to understand the figures you're including and how relevant they are to certain timeframes (e.g. much violence against Tutsis and political opponents occurred "after" the revolution, so do these refugee and death figures include those during 1959-1961 or also thereafter?). And with regards to timeframes, you listed exact dates, including 25 September 1961, which is mentioned nowhere else in the article. In conclusion, revolutions can get complicated, and this infobox does not do anything to help in those regards. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)