Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza/GA1

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.

---

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

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this on for review! Thanks for improving this for Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon! --Grnrchst (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Early life and education

• There's a full stop after "Fort Lamy, Chad", where there should be a comma.
• Link to French Chad, as it was still a colony during this period.
• Her mother wouldn't have been from the CAR, as at the time it was still a colony known as Ubangi-Shari.
• Link to French Cameroon.
• Le Soir url appears to be dead. Add an archived url ([1]) for easier verification.
• Clarify that Panthéon-Assas University is in France, as it's currently unclear that she ever left the CAR before "she returned".
• Might be worth clarifying that she returned in 1990, per the source, just to better establish the timeline.
• "After entering the business [...]" "The business" here being her company or the industry?
• "She is married to Cyriaque Samba-Panza, a former CAR government official, and she has three children." Did she get married at this time? Currently this detail seems a bit out of place in the wider context of the paragraph.
  • I wasn't able to find any source on when they were married. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• You mention that it is 2003 twice in the same sentence. Cut one.
• Link to 2003 Central African Republic coup d'état.
• What were the conference's recommendations and how did she implement them?

• Spotcheck: [5] Cited source doesn't say. :/

• Maybe change the title to "Early life and career", as it talks about much more than just her education.

Mayor of Bangui

• "due to her reputation for neutrality and incorruptibility"

• Spotcheck: [13] Source says she was politically neutral, but I can't find anything about "incorruptibility".

• "following the Central African Republic Civil War." But the war is still ongoing. Maybe saying the Battle of Bangui (2013) would be more accurate?
• Were there any concrete results from her campaign? I know it's probably hard to say, as she was only mayor for half a year.
  • I didn't see anything about this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• "She was succeeded as mayor by Hyacinthe Wodobodé." Was Wodobodé elected? Might be worth clarifying, given Samba-Panza's earlier comments about elections.

Taking office

• Spotcheck: [18] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [13] Verified.
• "the government had collapsed" Is this referring to the previous government or the government's control over the country?
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [16] Verified.

Tenure

• "it was necessary for militants to find occupation" What does this mean?
• Link to political bias
• Prose flip-flops a bit between past and present tense at the end of the first paragraph.
• Spotcheck: [14] I can't seem to find anything about French intervention or her comments on it in La Croix. Is this the right source?
• Spotcheck: [23] Seems like here she's arguing against the collective responsibility of armed groups for the war crimes committed by its members. Might be worth clarifying this.
• Spotcheck: [27] Verified.
• "was ineligible to serve while she was interim president" What? Does this mean she was ineligible to run in the election?
• "It was then postponed several times." Would be worth clarifying the reasons, i.e. the political violence in the capital.
• Spotcheck: [23] Verified, although I think "a second round of elections" would be more accurate than "a new election".

2020 presidential campaign

• Do we know what she was doing between 2016 and 2020?
• Might be worth clarifying how much of the vote she won.
  • I was not able to find the exact statistics in a reliable source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, I found it in a Tweet from a news station written in French. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Any news about Samba-Panza since the election?

Lead and infobox

• "She is the first woman" Shouldn't it be "She was the first woman"?
• Might be worth mentioning what work she was doing as a broker and women's rights activist.
  • I don't want to put too much detail for something she's not notable for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Might be worth mentioning whether her attempts were successful and the political climate when she left office.
  • Not much information about this to add. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

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

   Some issues with clarity. Most of the prose is otherwise good, with only some minor grammatical issues.

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

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

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

   Citations should be ensured to be complete, but otherwise all good.

   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):

   Every sentence has an inline citation.

   C. It contains no original research:

   A couple cases where the sources don't appear to verify the text.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig only flags direct and properly-attributed quotations.[2]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Couple empty patches in the timeline. Not sure if there are sources that can fill these out, but worth a check.

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

   Very focused. All context is necessary.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   Includes both praise and criticisms, where they make sense. None of it appears undue.

5. Is it stable?

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

   No edits since nomination. Last reversion was over a year ago.

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:

   Two of the photographs are from the United States Department of State, and thus in the public domain. Another was taken by the Voice of America, so is also in the public domain. Campaign logo is tagged as in the public domain, but I'm uncertain about its accuracy.

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

   All relevant and properly captioned. Alt text should be provided but it's not necessary for GA.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Another nicely written article on a very interesting woman in politics. Good work TBUA! My issues are mainly with clarity, gaps in the timeline and sources that don't appear to verify what's being said. Ping me when you feel you've addressed all my comments and I'll be happy to take another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Status query

Grnrchst, Thebiguglyalien, it's been over a month since the review without any action. I haven't seen any edits on Wikipedia from Thebiguglyalien since November 9. If nothing has happened by the end of the year, I'd suggest closing; hopefully, they'll be back by then and it won't be necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: TBUA is taking a wikibreak, so I don't think these notes will be addressed for the near future. Personally, I'd be happy to keep this open, although maybe it'd be worth closing for now and re-opening if/when TBUA has come back. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Grnrchst, based on TBUA's talk-page post this past weekend, which I see you responded to, I think closing is the route to take. You could always begin a new review once TBUA has addressed the issues you've already raised and renominated the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

A little late, but I've resolved all listed issues except where I've replied above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:56, 3 March 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.