Talk:Peter Obi

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Peter Obi at Chatham House.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Obi/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SafariScribe (talk · contribs) 12:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Samoht27 (talk · contribs) 16:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for picking this up. I will keen to your review and please be patient with me in particular since there is sometimes problem of connectivity in Nigeria. This is a very good article and I will ask you don't use sift hand while reviewing. If there is any changes, I am more than willing to do that immediately Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 17:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'll undertake reviewing this nomination.

Stable

The article passes this criteria, small vandalism has occurred in the past, but the article is not part of any large vandalism campaign or edit war.

Illustration

Lead image should be enough to fit this criteria, I am unsure about the copyright status of the image used. The image comes from a news publication, which usually has images protected by copyright. Though I wasn't able to find a specific copyright statement on the publication's website, it's likely the images used in the publication are still protected. If I find some definitive proof of the image's copyright status, the article will pass this criteria easily.

• Samoht27, it has been over a month since you picked this review up, and nearly that since you made any edits to this page. Do you intend to review it or not? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Personal life problems have gotten in the way, I apologize. I cannot review this at this time. -Samoht27 (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I've marked it as abanoned. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Obi/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SafariScribe (talk · contribs) 12:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 21:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Quick fail on ground of copyright violation. I made a few edits to improve this but there is more work to be done. Also the fact that the copyvivo is finding his party's page is highly concerning for the neutrality of the article and editors.

My is Amina Abdullah

@ 102.89.22.60 (talk) 10:40, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Copyright Issues

Here is the earliest capture of the source that I marked as a copyvivo issue in the GAN. @SafariScribe marked on my talk page this source may actually be copying wikipedia. Upon further inspection to the edit history of the article, I see that several of the phrases marked as copyvivo were written on this article before the first capture of the source. I think that is sufficient for a good-faith belief that the article is not in copyright violation. Therefore, if SafariScribe opens a new review I will happily reconsider. Czarking0 (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Peter Obi/GA3. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: SafariScribe (talk · contribs) 22:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 14:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I currently have a lot of comments under coverage just in the first section. I don't think it is worth being more through until those are addressed.

• Hi Czarking0, I will address all the concern, but please give me time. I will ping you when am done. Thanks.Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hi @Czarking0, I haven't gotten to add yet, but I'd love to understand them well. Here it goes, would you mind continuing the review, and towards each one, you let me know what to add there, and I will do that asap. For instance, you could leave the original comments where they are, and then just say start from the beginning, when we reach each segment/section, then ask me to do that. That may be the only way of getting those fixed. I don't know if you understood the logic? Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  I think I understand you meaning. I have expanded my review for what I had time to do today. Czarking0 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  Hey Safari are you planning on making some progress here? Czarking0 (talk) 17:34, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  @Czarking0, I'm so so sorry for not responding. I searched for sources and more content but found less or none. You may wish I withdraw or you fail it. Thank you for the kind help. I have many others listed for GAR at WP: WikiProject Nigeria. Cheers! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 18:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

  I found another source about his governor position here available via WP:TWL Czarking0 (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

  and here Czarking0 (talk) 02:04, 15 August 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.	"According to the Nigerian newspaper Peoples Gazette, Obi wrote to the leaders of PDP on 24 May 2022, to resign his membership,[8] as well as reportedly complained of massive bribing of delegates and vote buying during the party's presidential primary, citing the existence of a party clique collaborating against him" This is not a POV claim so you don't need to call out the source. Take out the "as well as" and try not to use the word "reportedly" as it is better suited to journalism than encyclopedia. Split this into two or three sentences. Here is an additional source.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Controversy section is a little iffy. Panama papers is the only thing in here. It could make sense to incorporate this into other sections. I recommend you come back to this point after addressing the others. The governorship section includes the SEC and other roles which it should not
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.	I am made some mention of citations that need publishers below. Other than that I have not found any issues yet. I have not been through them all and I will need to recheck if the coverage is expanded.
	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).	I think a major question is are the sources reliable? I expect that a lot of these are used on several WP Nigeria pages but I am not familiar with them so if they are not on the WP:RSP then we should investigate each of them and demonstrate reliability. Here are the sources I'd like to see. Theafricareport.com  Done The Sun Nigeria - I expect that this is connected to WP:THESUN which indicates it should not be used  Done Vanguard News -  Not done WP:NGRS marks this as unreliable so it should not be used Council on Foreign Relations - good for the claim it is sourcing  Done FN 6 needs the publisher, at a glance Premium Times does not seem unreliable. Seems good for this claim  Done People's Gazette appears to be a similar quality to Premium times. Seems good for these claims.  Done France24 is also unfamiliar to me and I think additional diligence is required to verify the reliability of this source or the notability and veracity of the comparison to Macron.  Not done Punch seems to be less reliable than other Nigerian sources and I would be more comfortable with additional discussion about its use  Done Daily Trust FN13 seems to be an opinion piece which is not reliable for the claims it is cited on.  Not done BusinessDay appears to be a better source and FN17 is good verifying its claims  Done FN 19 needs publisher, at a glance vanguard seems to be a medium reliability source. probably good for the claims it is cited on.  Not done
	2c. it contains no original research.	My first analysis cannto find any but I will need to recheck if the coverage is expanded.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The author and I have discussed this. See previous GA and talk page for more details
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I think there are some significant coverage issues. However, I understand that there may not be the requisite sources to cover all these points. Here is what I think needs to be added: What are the major differences in platform between Obi and Ngige in the 2003 election What were the results of the 2003 campaign? Any notable difference in the results by certain demographic groups or districts? How does Obi tie into the larger picture of All Progressives Grand Alliance in 2003 Did the 2003 campaign have other notable candidates that Obi was notably differentiated from? Why was he impeached? What were the results of the 2007 election? Again demographic or district differences? How did the public respond to Obi not running? Voter turn out? Anecdotes? On what grounds did he challenge the impeachment? How rare are these type of judicial issues in electoral process in Nigeria? Were other Nigerian politicians facing similar challenges? What were the results of the 2010 election? Again demographic or district differences? Why did Obiano's succession occur? What did he do as governor? Why was he chosen for the SEC role? What did he do at the SEC ? "Obi was named as the running mate to Atiku Abubakar " - for what role? Why was he the running mate?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The other issues are so significant, I can't really call something out here as out of scope.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I would probably not pass this article as neutral in the current state. However, it is difficult to say since there is so little coverage. Neutrality concerns I have are: what did he do in office, why was he impeached. I think the percentage of this article that is devoted to panama papers is probably undue weight given how little info there is about anything else.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I'd give this lukewarm pass. There are quite a few reverted edits. However given that several of those are from IP users and they don't defend their edits I'd let it go unless more issues are brought.
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.	There are no images. Given that he is a 21st century politician I would expect to be able to find some usable image of him. There has been some edit warring over the image. I have not reviewed this
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.	I outlined a number of ways that this article should improve before assigning GA status. It has been a month with no movement so I am failing.

• Thank you very much, @Czarking0. I'll include the sources and content into the article. However, due to the tables abve, I'm not sure how to respond to your comments. Perhaps you could do that in a discussion section. For instance, WP:THESUN is not linked at all to The Sun (Nigeria), and a list of reliable sources for such an article can be found in WP:NGRS. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 15:05, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for WP:NGRS I did not know about that. I have cross referenced my table with that one and marked the items need need additional attention as  Not done Czarking0 (talk) 21:45, 15 August 2024 (UTC)