Talk:1991 Kiribati presidential election

GA Review

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:1991 Kiribati presidential election/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 03:24, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 16:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

I'll take this one. It looks like I can access all the sources except for the book, which has an online preview. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:27, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Vigilantcosmicpenguin, thanks! I've responded to everything. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section summarizes the article. Layout makes sense. No WTW issues. The lists of results are appropriate.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	References are listed.
	2b. 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).	Citations are to academic publications, as well as a reliable contemporary news source. One of the sources is apparently written by one of the presidential candidates, but is not used for contentious statements.
	2c. it contains no original research.	All information reflects the sources accurately.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	No issues here.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	There are apparently not many sources about the topic, and the article addresses their key points.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The article summarizes things that are relevant to the subject.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article reflects the sources and does not have any bias about the election.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	Images are free to use.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The only images are in the infobox, which follows the standard for an election article.
	7. Overall assessment.	A solid, thorough article about the subject.

Quickfail criteria

1. Y Article looks good.
2. Y Earwig is down, but Earwig's source search gives a score of 2.9%, and a review of the sources shows no close paraphrasing.
3. Y No cleanup banners.
4. Y This is a rare political topic that's safe from edit warring.
5. Y No previous GAN review.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Initial comments

• Sources look good. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• Why does the results table link to Tabiteuea twice? It looks like they should link to North Tabiteuea and South Tabiteuea. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed.

Lead section

• The word "scandal" might be mildly contentious, and the body doesn't use the word. The reelection eligibility and the Soviet agreement would probably be described as scandals, but I just want to make sure the label is appropriate here. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • I can't think of a better way to describe it.

    Alright, should be fine then. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• This isn't quite an issue for a GAN, but shouldn't the infobox list the candidates' parties? — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Parties are tricky in Kiribati where they're fluid in how "official" they are, especially around this time.

    Other I-Kiribati election articles also don't list the parties, so ok. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:35, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

• I've done some small copyedits to the whole article for conciseness. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Background

• Prose in this section looks good. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Candidates

• To clarify, Teiwaki was only a minister in parliament before 1982, and not after his 1990 reelection, right? Maybe write "before leaving in 1982" or something. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed.
• I broke up the semicolon sentences into multiple sentences. I think this reads more clearly. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
• he led Reitan Kiribati, a group of independents who aligned with one another. The article already explained what Reitan Kiribati is, so this seems repetitive. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Shortened it to "the independent group Reitan Kiribati". I think it's good to still have some reminder of what it is.
• each of the four parliamentary factions nominated two candidates [...] for a total of eight nominees This feels redundant; readers will understand that two times four is eight. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
  • Fixed.

Campaign

• were plagued by → involved — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs)
  • Fixed.

Aftermath

• Prose in this section looks good. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 18:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Source spotcheck

As of this revision. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Y Though the phrasing made me assume the NPP was newly created, which it was not.
2. N It looks like the source is quoting Teannaki and then interpreting in its own voice that there was poor accounting. It does not imply that Teannaki himself said there was poor accounting.
3. Y But maybe say "its stated policy of self-sufficiency despite acceptance of foreign aid", instead of the other way around. Since Tito was criticizing the self-sufficiency policy itself.
4. Y
5. Y
6. Y
7. Y
8. Y
9. Y
10. Y
11. Y
12. Y
13. Y
14. Y
15. Y
16. Y Though it says results were announced within six hours, which might mean it started earlier.
17. Y
18. Y
19. Y
20. Y
21. Y
22. Y
23. Y In addition to mentioning "individual personalities", maybe explain the notion that he was appealing to the Northern personality.
24. Y
25. Y The total for Arunaka should be 316. The counts for North Tabutea should be 86 + 56 + 362 + 605 = 1109.
26. Y
27. Y
28. Y
29. Y
30. Y

Van Trease 1992 also discusses a few more points you should include in the article: the Catholic newspaper said the Catholic majority wanted a Catholic candidate; Tinga won in his home island. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:28, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Vigilantcosmicpenguin, I fixed the wording to better work with the source. Thank you for bringing up the missing points; I feel that the article already covers the Catholic–Protestant divide, but I found some good analysis content when rechecking Van Trease, including stuff about Tinga. And just to let you know, you're not expected to check every use of a source if you don't feel it's necessary. You're certainly welcome to if you want to, and it's helpful, but it's not mandated. A lot of reviewers will check a handful and consider it a representative sample. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

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.