Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza/GA2

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) 13:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the article's first GA review, which was closed because the nominator was on a wikibreak at the time the review was opened. Edits have been made to the article in order to address many of the comments in the previous review. Comments here will be focused on issues that I think have remained since the last review. I will carry out spotchecks on newly introduced information, leaving the spotchecks of the previous review as standing for themselves. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Notes

• If there is any information available about what the recommendations of the reconciliation conference were and how Samba-Panza implemented them, this would be good to include. I notice this information isn't included in the cited source, but it may be worth checking others to see.
  • Not able to find anything in English of French. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• "after it was devastated by the Central African Republic Civil War." I still think this may be a bit ambiguous, as the CAR civil war is still ongoing. But it's a better wording than the previous iteration.
• Spotcheck: [14] Verified in all cases.
• "she was one of three female heads of state in Africa" Might be worth clarifying that this is at the time (early 2014), although this is only a minor quibble. You could also break this sentence up, so ending one sentence with "become the country's president" and starting a new one with "She was also one of three female heads of state in Africa".
• "Samba-Panza welcomed the intervention by French soldiers in the CAR." Could be rewritten to "Samba-Panza welcomed the French intervention in the CAR." Also, Operation Sangaris should be linked to.
• "She weighed this against crimes committed by some soldiers" Should be clarified that these are French interventionist soldiers she's talking about. Right now it's still a little ambiguous.
• "As Séléka had no ties to Kamoun" Shouldn't this be "As the Séléka..."?
• Very nice work finding this information about the 2016-2020 period.
• Spotcheck: [33] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [33][34][35] Verified, although it may be worth bringing these inline with the specific countries each source is talking about, i.e. cite Jeune Afrique for Liberia, BBC News for Senegal and Africa News for DR Congo.
• Spotcheck: [36] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [39] Verified.
• If you'd rather use a non-Twitter source for the election result, or to supplement it with one, Jean-François Akandji-Kombé posted the full results published by the constitutional court on his website.[1] Personally I'm moving more and more against citing Twitter, as the website is becoming increasingly more difficult to access and verify.
• Spotcheck: [41][42] Hrm. Most of this is ok, but I think "without cause" may need further elaboration. Alwihda Info says she was prevented from leaving the country and her passport confiscated at the airport, without the government giving any explanation. Human Rights Watch says that she was prevented from leaving because of "ongoing judicial investigations" into alleged links between her and the armed groups affiliated with Bozizé's Coalition of Patriots for Change. I think providing more detail here is justified.
  • I tried to reword it a little, it could use another look. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Do we know about what has happened with Samba-Panza since she was blocked from leaving the country in 2021?
  • I have not been able to find anything else. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

All in all, this article has improved a good deal since I last reviewed it. I'm happy to have seen many of the new additions and clarifications in the prose.

1. Is it well written?

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

   Prose is almost all good. There are a couple very minor issues with grammar and clarity, but these are easily fixed.

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

   No issues with the style.

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:

   Referencing is top-notch.

   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):

   One case where sources could be moved into a sentence, rather than clustering at the end. But this is a minor issue.

   C. It contains no original research:

   No cases of original research or novel interpretation that I can see.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig only flags direct and properly attributed quotes.[2] I also haven't seen any cases of copyvio in translations from the French language sources.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Updates on her since 2021 should be provided, if the information is available. A lot has changed in the CAR since she was blocked from leaving the country.

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

   Very focused.

4. Is it neutral?

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

   No apparent bias or non-neutrality in the prose.

5. Is it stable?

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

   No reversions have taken place in nearly a year. Only major content additions have been for the GA process.

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:

   I'm still unconvinced about the public domain status of the campaign logo. The justification that "it does not meet the threshold of originality" is dubious.

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

   All relevant.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Thebiguglyalien: Thanks so much for all the work you've done on this important subject! My only remaining notes are largely minor ones that are easily fixed, with the only issue preventing a quick-pass being a question of if there's recent information on her that could be added to the article. Ping me once you feel you addressed everything and I'll be happy to give it another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Grnrchst I've made all suggested changes except where I've replied above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Ok, I'm more than happy to pass this now. Excellent work on this article, as always! --Grnrchst (talk) 10:07, 5 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.