Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan/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: Firefangledfeathers (talk · contribs) 17:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I am picking up review of this second nomination. I was also the reviewer at Talk:Samia Suluhu Hassan/GA1, which was closed due to nominator inactivity. Thebiguglyalien is back at it, and I'm excited to see this head toward a likely pass. I have to start with a review of the changes made per GA1, and I'll have some feedback on that soon. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Putting this on hold. No major issues yet, and I'll have the last nitpicks out within a week. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:25, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

A pass. Congrats! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:14, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Review tracker

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

A clear pass.

1. Is it well written?

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

   All issues addressed in GA1 plus a few small copyedits.

   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:

   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):

   Spot checks in both reviews came up clean

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Spot checks in both reviews came up clean

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

4. Is it neutral?

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

   All issues identified in GA1 and below have been addressed

5. Is it stable?

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

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:

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

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Items from GA1

The changes made in response to the issues brought up in GA1 all look good. The only lingering item is the neutrality of §Style of governance. I brought up the first example, ""has been contrasted ...", and that has now been fixed, but I think more works is needed in the section. There are a few opinion statements, cited to opinion sources, stated sort of vaguely in wiki-voice. The next example would be "Suluhu is instead compared ...", which is cited to an opinion piece in the BBC. This should probably be attributed. I can enumerate all of the remaining issues, but you may want to get a jumpstart on your own re-work while I work through the other sections. If you'd prefer to wait, that's also fine. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

I've reworked it a little bit, hopefully it looks better now. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 02:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Will have a look soon. Do you have a copy of "Tanzania: Samia Suluhu Hassan - a Tough Journey From Activism to Politics" you could email me? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The archive link should be of a non-paywalled version. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 03:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

A definite improvement. Is "A sense of distrust has remained among the opposition, amplified by the persecution they experienced under her predecessor" the best way to summarize the AP source? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I reworded the sentence to make it a little more nuanced in line with the source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:59, 17 February 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.