Talk:Natal Native Pioneer Corps

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Natal Native Pioneer Corps/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dumelow (talk · contribs) 21:46, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: Nick-D (talk · contribs) 06:20, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Comments

• "They remained in service for some months after the war ended in July" - I'd suggest adding the year here

Added - Dumelow (talk) 11:32, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• A map would be helpful

Excellent suggestion, added - Dumelow (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

That's a really useful map. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

• Do we know how were the members of the unit were selected by the chiefs? The article notes that at least some were volunteers - was this true for all of them?

I don't think this is covered by the sources. I think the Natal administration just told the chiefs to supply "x number" of men at a certain place and time. How the chiefs selected them was presumably up to them - Dumelow (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• "and were noted to be enthusiastic about their duties" - who noted this?

The source isn't clear (it implies by their British officers), removed - Dumelow (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• "they did not ceasefire" - this should be 'cease fire'

Amended - Dumelow (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

• " as other native units were disbanded" - is it necessary to use 'native' in this context given it's generally a word to avoid, except where used in a historical context. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

Have clarified by naming the specific units that disbanded (the NNC were also kept on, in the main) - Dumelow (talk) 11:50, 20 October 2025 (UTC)

These changes look good, and I'm pleased to pass this review. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Assessment against criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   There's a bit of aboidable passive voice in the article, but the quality of writing is high.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Some of the sources are published by obscure firms, but this is likely unavoidable in this subject area. The firms seem OK. The sources are a mix of contemporary and modern works, which is also unavoidable for these types of articles, and the old sources have been used sparingly.

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

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

   File:Wagons crossing Amatikulu drift on the way to Eshowe.jpg and File:Corduroyroad.jpg would benefit from more formal records at Commons, but are PD.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: