Talk:Belgian Congo in World War II

	Belgian Congo in World War II 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.
	Belgian Congo in World War II is part of the Belgium in World War II series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result August 31, 2013 Good article nominee Listed February 25, 2014 Good topic candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 8, 2013. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Belgian Congo provided both soldiers and material assistance to the Allies during World War II?
Current status: Good article

This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Africa: DRC / Military history Mid‑importance 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. This article is supported by WikiProject Democratic Republic of the Congo (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by African military history task force. Belgium Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Colonialism (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Colonialism, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ColonialismWikipedia:WikiProject ColonialismTemplate:WikiProject Colonial EmpiresColonialism articles Military history: African / World War II C‑class This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  African military history task force World War II task force

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, 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.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Belgian Congo in World War II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cliftonian (talk · contribs) 10:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this shortly. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

This article looks in pretty good shape to me from first glance. I'll put comments below as I go through.

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   Was generally good. I went through and corrected a few issues with punctuation and the like, and did some copyedits. Looks good to me now.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   Just a few issues here. I have put "citation needed" tags some places where we need to put references.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Some bits could be perceived as anti-colonial, but I went through and fixed these

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No issues

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   I feel this is close to GA status. Just a couple places we need references. Well done so far! —Cliftonian (talk) 11:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

   A point—are we using British or American English in this article? Let me know so I can make sure all the spellings etc are consistent. —Cliftonian (talk) 11:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly mind with this one. Other Belgian ones I've written in the past have been Brit Eng. Brigade Piron (talk) 07:10, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Thanks so much for your help here! Just a couple of things I've decided to alter back, if it's OK -

1. I've returned the quotes to individual sections. This is OK in the Manual of Style, and is consistent with the other main Belgian-WWII articles.
2. Citation language indication reverted to more common type. I've always seen the (in French)-type tages, though I may be wrong.
3. Ethnic/races - Ethnic group (defined by culture rather than anything else) are many in the Congo, even today - the colonial authorities only forbade black/white fraternization.
4. I've removed the unsourced text about a Belgian squadron formed in Nigeria added by another user. It's Belgian-African-WWII related, but I don't believe that it deserves a place in a discussion of the Belgian Congo.

I've fixed the ref needed tag by the way. All the best! Brigade Piron (talk) 07:09, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1. I think this meets GA now and am therefore passing. Here are a couple minor points you may wish to look at if you want to develop the article further:

   "The Belgian colonial military numbered 18,000 soldiers, making it one of the largest standing colonial armies in Africa at the time". I would guess that this was mostly black askaris, with a few hundred whites there as officers. Is this correct? Perhaps we should make this clear

   "Exports to the United States also rose from $600,000 in early 1940 to $2,700,000 by 1942" $600,000 per annum? $600,000 per month? This would be better if made clear

   Well done Brigade Piron! I hereby promote the article to GA. —Cliftonian (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belgian Congo in World War II. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www3.amherst.edu/~mrhunt/uranium/notes8.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070209023739/http://www.mil.be/vox/subject/index.asp?LAN=fr&ID=612&MENU=916&PAGE=2 to http://www.mil.be/vox/subject/index.asp?LAN=fr&ID=612&MENU=916&PAGE=2
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://vkc.library.uu.nl/vkc/seh/research/Lists/Events/Attachments/12/CH9.Buelens.Cassimon.IndustrializationCongo.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:36, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]