Talk:1993 Burundian coup attempt/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Gug01 (talk · contribs) 17:46, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Congratulations on yet another Good Article! A worthwhile addition to Wikipedia and the knowledge of humanity. Gug01 (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2021 (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 extremely clear, concise, correct, and engaging! Great work!
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	User:Indy beetle has proven that the lack of citations in the article's lead still complies with Wikipedia guidelines.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	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).	Sources are almost all scholarly books and articles, many of which come highly recommended within academic circles in this field.
	2c. it contains no original research.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Main aspects of topic, including coup background, organizers, execution, and effects are addressed. Coverage of aftermath and coup's relevance in popular culture has been expanded. Coverage of the coupers' perspective is lower than I would like because the information available is extremely limited; this aspect of the topic is addressed in as much depth as reasonably possible without entering unwarranted speculation. Coverage of Ndadaye's motivations for (lack of) action were included in footnotes, so as to not disrupt flow, which is satisfactory.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This is definitely the case. The concision of the article is remarkable.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Very neutral - relevant viewpoints, even when opposing, are presented in a neutral fashion without undue weight given to any one, while the evidence and information behind each is still conveyed.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	The edit history 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.	CC-BY-3.0 is claimed for photos and is legitimate.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	Captions are great, and all pertinant photos readily accessible are used.
	7. Overall assessment.	Congratulations on the great (Good) article!

Hello! I'm Gug01, and I'll be reviewing your article on the 1993 Burundian coup to see if it qualifies as a Good Article. As I read through the article, I'll put a few pieces of feedback below. Gug01 (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is entirely missing in citations. The lead's content is replicated and expanded upon in the rest of the article - as it should be - with citations there, but I'd prefer you cite the information in the lead as well. Articles describing countries and coups tend to have citations in the lead - Burundi and 1973 Chilean coup d'état are examples - though some articles like United States don't. Ultimately, given that a lot of readers rely on Wikipedia's lead more than any other part of the article, it's important the lead be cited.

@Indy beetle: For the same reason, it's important the lead is engaging and accurate. It is engaging - great job writing it!

As for accuracy, it'll be much easier for me to check once you cite your sources in the lead. Gug01 (talk) 17:53, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

The relevant guidance is MOS:LEADCITE, which only calls for citing things of BLP concern or in "controversial" subjects. BLP doesn't really apply, since most the people involved here (particularly those accused of possibly leading the coup) are dead. The guideline reads Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. While I think its fair to call a coup of this scale controversial, there's basically no dispute in the reliable sources as to what happened (soldiers murdered top FRODEBU politicians and attempted to install Ngeze as president) and that there was at least some complicity in the the top ranks of the Burundian military, just some vagueness regarding who actually planned the coup (which is reflected in the lede). Personally, I do think that lede cites would be redundant, as everything mentioned there is a summary of the body of the article, and thus, as for accuracy, you only need look for the relevant information in the body with the accompanying cites. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:45, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Fair. All important statements in the lead have corresponding citations in the body, which I have checked and are great! Gug01 (talk) 02:02, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Background

"The army was due to open its annual recruitment drive in November, and there were fears among some Tutsi soldiers that this process would be altered in a way that would threaten their dominance of the institution" (last sentence, Background section) - how exactly did Tutsi soldiers fear that changes in military recruitment would threaten their military dominance? Did they fear that an influx of Hutus would dilute the Tutsi presence? Or were the soldiers' fears more vague and varied? Gug01 (talk) 17:59, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

That is almost certainly what the Commission report means, but it only speaks of "Changes...that might weaken or end Tutsi dominance", and I don't want to assume more than it says. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:22, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. Gug01 (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Coup Organisers

"Others suspected of involvement include Jérôme Sinduhije, Alphonse-Marie Kadege, Libère Bararunyestse, Pascal Simbanduku, Lieutenant Colonel Jean-Bosco Daradangwe, François Bizindavyi, Samuel Nduwingoma, Laurent Niyonkuru, Charles Mukasi, Commander Ntakiyica, Lieutenant Paul Kamana, Major Bernard Busokoza, Lieutenant Colonel Slyvestre Ningaba, Lieutenant Colonel Nzosaba, Lieutenant Colonel Ndayisaba, Lieutenant Colonel Niyoyunguruza, Lieutenant Colonel Maregarege, Lieutenant Colonel Nengeri, Lieutenant Colonel Pancrace Girukwigomba, Major Gervais Nimubona, Major Bukasa, Major Haziyo, Lieutenant Ntarataza, Lieutenant Ngomirakiza,[22] Vincent Niyungeko, and George Mukarako" - There's not enough explanation as to who exactly these people are. For some people, like "Lieutenant Ntarataza," their position is clear; for (what I assume to be) civilians like Charles Musaki, a brief description of their position would be invaluable, as well as linking to their Wikipedia pages, if they have one. Gug01 (talk) 18:04, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I've labeled Mukasi as an UPRONA politician, and gave some elaboration on Kamana and Ntakiyica. I've gone through and added the ranks of military personnel when I've found them, but the source is rather vague about who these persons were and in some cases the first name is not available. I'll add more if I find anything. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Great! Gug01 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Prelude

"Ngendahayo stated that he thought this would cost UPRONA the elections, and thus the only reason they would oppose the policy is if they planned to take power via assassination and a coup." - That is some really interesting logic.

Overall, the "Prelude" section is engaging and documents extremely well the perspective of the ruling government which is about to be couped.

However, I'd like information on what UPRONA, the military, and the Tutsi coupers were doing before their tanks surrounded the Presidential Palace. After all, to understand the coup, it's important not only to see the government's lethargic reaction, but also the preparations of the putschists. Gug01 (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to know as much as you. The problem is, same with our lack of exact knowledge on who planned the coup, there isn't certainty as to what meetings were held and when and what decisions were made to design the coup. Krueger makes a very vague reference to such "meetings" occurring, mostly building off the accusations of Lieutenant Jean-Paul Kamana and Commandant Hilaire Ntakiyica. There's very little to go off of other than rumours. Little to nothing is said about the disposition of UPRONA at this time. -Indy beetle (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Interesting. I think you should add a few sentences explaining exactly this to the "Prelude" section, perhaps a short paragraph at its end.Gug01 (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Krueger's comment is so vague I've decided not to include it, but I found another source which has some info on coup preparations that I've added as intro to the section on "Coup organisers". Exact dates were not forthcoming so it would've been difficult to incorporate in the chronological "Prelude" section. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

This point isn't necessarily a comment about improving an article, but more a question on the subject matter. Based on the way the article is written, it appears that despite ample warning, Ndadye and the people in his government didn't do much about an impending coup. I wonder what possible reasons exist for this.Gug01 (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Ndadaye's (lack of) action specifically, there appear to be two possible explanations. Journalists Gaëtan Sebudandi and Pierre-Olivier Richard speculate that Ndadaye was self-assured that, like the plot on 3 July, nothing serious would happen and everything would be fine. Krueger actually writes on this exact issue, saying "That a president as intelligent as Ndadaye's associates found him to be would so readily such scant preparations for his protection seems, in retrospect, remarkable to an outsider..." (This regarding his response to Ntakije's decision to send him a mere one armoured car to help protect the palace). He continues, "However, in a capital perpetually nervous with rumour, it becomes exhausting to take seriously every reported threat. Moreover, Ndadaye may have had a kind of che sarà, sarà, [what will be, will be] fatalistic attitude that could come to a person who, having overcome numerous life threatening challenges, was unwilling to run away from the position and responsibilities he had so recently assumed." That seems reasonable to me. After all, the president had said, "They can kill Ndadaye, but they can't kill all 5 million Ndadayes." -Indy beetle (talk) 03:55, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: I would find a way to include Richard's and Krueger's remarks in the article (perhaps even quoting them like you've done here). Though speculation (which should be made clear), I think some ideas explaining Ndadaye's lack of action would greatly contribute to the understanding the article imparts. Gug01 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

To keep the narrative focused, I've placed these assumptions in a footnote in the "Prelude" section where it talks about Ndadaye seeming assured by his Minister of Defence. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

That works for me. Gug01 (talk) 01:35, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The Coup

Run-through of the coup is well-structured (with a point-by-point approach), crystal clear, concise, and engaging. No comments on improving the article here. Gug01 (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Aftermath

Well-structured, clear, concise, engaging, and most importantly, neutral - I like how you lay out multiple viewpoints without unduly favoring any particular viewpoint, while still conveying the evidence and information available behind each. Congratulations! Gug01 (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Criminal investigations and fate of alleged putschists

Once again, no comments here. Gug01 (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Extra

Is the 1993 Burundian coup attempt somewhat salient in popular culture, perhaps in the popular culture of Burundi? Gug01 (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Not much as far as I can tell (it would help if I could speak Kirundi). Ndadaye is seen as something of a national hero/martyr for democracy, and I've added that his death is commemorated annually, but I haven't seen things like artistic depictions or interpretations of this event. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Great - thanks for adding that in. Gug01 (talk) 17:36, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, are there any photos / films / footage taken right before or during the Burundi coup itself? Gug01 (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Existing photos and captions are great; I'm wondering if there's any more relevant footage that could be included before I mark "yes" in section 6b. Gug01 (talk) 02:05, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

There's this photo of Ndadaye's casket being reinterred on 6 December 1993, other than that not much else. Burundi is one of the hardest things to find photos of, especially historical ones. Press agencies haven't been especially active there, and in the early 1990s audiovisual media was dominated by the state broadcaster, which naturally wasn't filming too much during the coup. The images that are there are stills taken from the state media's Youtube channel, which posted a retrospective on Ndadaye under CC license. Hopefully they'll do another one in the future. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. Gug01 (talk) 17:35, 6 September 2021 (UTC)