Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcel Lihau/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Sarastro1 via FACBot (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2017 [1].

---

Marcel Lihau

Nominator(s): Indy beetle (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

This article is about Marcel Lihau, a Congolese politician, jurist, and law professor who served as first president of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Congo and was involved in the creation of two functional constitutions for the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Lihau was the first Congolese to ever receive a law degree and began his career in the midst of the Congo Crisis, serving in the justice ministry and authoring the Luluabourg Constitution. In 1968 he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Justice but was removed seven years later by dictator Mobutu after refusing to enforce a harsh sentence upon student protesters. He helped organize the political opposition to Mobutu in his later years and advocated for democracy until his death. As such I think he's very important to Congolese history. This article is smaller than other FA biography nominations, but there's less info to go off of. I've done what I think I can with the available sources and I think this is ready for the FA process.-Indy beetle (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Note to reviewers and coordinators: I will be on vacation from today until August 5 without proper internet access and may not be able to respond in full to comments until then. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

Just a few things,

• "In 1963 ... In 1965 ... In 1968" Mix it up.
• I'm not doing an image review, but that lede image is going to give you trouble. If you don't know who the photographer is, how can it possibly have a CC license?
• Why does the article use American style spelling (democratizing) and Commonwealth style dates?
• "He was the eldest of eight children.[2] He received his secondary" ditto.
• " the decision greatly reinforced their bargaining position with the Belgians." I might say "strengthened" for "reinforced"
• "Lihau subsequently participated in the economic conference that took place from April until May that addressed the economic transition that the Congo was undergoing." I might change the last two words to "would undergo", if it's consistent with the source.
• The first paragraph of the "Justice" paragraph could usefully be split.
• "which party held the prerogative to make revisions" this is unclear as you have not mentioned parties yet.
• " he added to the diversity of the organisation" I might toss a "geographic" before "diversity"
• "at the Hotel InterContinental in Kinshasa" I don't think the italics are needed.
• "in the view of the American delegation" I might say "in full view of the American delegation"

• " "Conference Nationale Souveraine" " I don't think the quotes are needed. You might want to check the MOS on whether foreign proper names need italicization.

• "In 1980 13 members of Parliament published a letter criticising Mobutu's regime. They were arrested and charged with "aggravated treason". Lihau testified on their behalf during the ensuing trial.[20] In 1982 he joined them" again, similar beginnings to consecutive sentences. Also consider commas.
• "Due to his political activities and flight from persecution[22] they separated in the late 1970s." I would say "the couple" for "they" to clear up any ambiguity.
• "A young politician named Jean-Pierre Kalokola claimed to be the illegitimate son of Lihau, who successfully filed a lawsuit against him." I might say after the comma, "and successfully filed a paternity suit against him." Assuming it was.
• " Three of Lihau's and Kanza's daughters organized a mass of thanksgiving in their honor in Gombe on 28 March 2015. " Should "their" be "his"?
• Can anything be said by way of a legacy?

Seems very well-written. I'm glad to see an article on African politics making it here.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Response to @Wehwalt:

1. Revised as "appointed dean of law faculty at the University of Lovanium in 1963. The following year he helped deliver the Luluabourg Constitution to the Congolese which was subsequently adopted by referendum. In 1965".
2. On its description page it should say "This file has been extracted from another file:", providing a link to File:Directors of the Union pour la Démocratie et le Progrès Social.jpg, which was published on Flickr under the CC license by Radio Okapi.
3. That's by mistake! I've changed all American spellings I have found to Commonwealth style.
4. Not sure I know what you're referring to, but revised as "He was the eldest of eight children. After his secondary education at the Bolongo seminary, Lihau attended".
5. Done.
6. Done.
7. Split after "He also served....under Prime Minister Joseph Iléo's brief government."
8. In this case I do not mean political parties, I'm referring to the respective factions that debated over who held the prerogative: Kasa-Vubu's government and the constitutional commission. Should this be changed for clarity?

Yes, factions sounds like a good word.--Wehwalt (talk) 07:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Done. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

1. Done.
2. Italics undone.
3. Done.
4. MOS consulted, revisions made accordingly.
5. Revised to say "Two years later he joined them in founding".
6. Done.
7. Done.
8. No, as the ceremony was in honor of both Lihau and Kanza. Revised to say "in their parents' honor".
9. The only info that seems appropriate is what I've included under the "Commemoration" section and the quote I've included from the UDPS leadership. I've also added some details on his constitutional activities at the Round Table and the CNS. Unfortunately, it would seem that Lihau's jurisprudence has been rendered presently irrelevant by the course of Congolese history; the constitutions he authored in the 1960s have long been discarded, the Constitution of Zaire which he interpreted is no longer in force, and the work he did at the CNS has been transcended by a transitional constitution of 2003 and the current one promulgated in 2006. Of course, federalism remains a large matter for debate within the Congo. The only lasting testimony to Lihau's work is the UDPS (still as vocal an opposition group as ever), and I think I've covered that by the inclusion of the quote from their leadership.

Thank you for your review. I'm also happy to have the chance to nominate an Africa article.-Indy beetle (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Support very well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Image review

• File:Marcel_Lihau.jpg: is there an OTRS number to support that tag?
• File:Université_de_Kinshasa.JPG: since DRC does not have freedom of panorama, what is the copyright status of the building pictured? Nikkimaria (talk) 22:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Response to @Nikkimaria:

1. That photo is a derivative of a work published on Flickr with that license. As I said to Wehwalt above: "On its description page it should say "This file has been extracted from another file:", providing a link to File:Directors of the Union pour la Démocratie et le Progrès Social.jpg, which was published on Flickr under the CC license by Radio Okapi." This was confirmed by the FlickreviewR robot.
2. Fair point. The building has been around since 1954, having been established by Jesuit missionaries as part of the Catholic University of Leuven (1834–1968) back when the country was under Belgian rule. It's now the main building of the University of Kinshasa. The relevant copyright law does establish that architecture is protected but I can't determine who owns the copyright or when it will/would have expired. As such, I've removed the photo.

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:41, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Source review from Ealdgyth

• Per WP:ALLCAPS, we don't put titles of sources in all caps even when the source does so. "DECLARATION..." and "IN MEMORIUM" in the references need fixing. Same applies to BRILL in the Burke reference.
• In the citations - you have "UDPS 1999" which is linked to "IN MEMORIUM" - if the author is UDPS, it should be listed as such in the references. It isn't always the case that the links will work, so by not having the short citation easily match up to a reference, you're going to cause confusion.
• Same holds for "DECLARATION" which appears to be short cited as "UDPS 2015"
• You give an ISBN for some reference - can we have ISBNs/OCLC numbers for all of them?
• You give locations for some of the references - you need to be consistent and give them for all of the book references
• Can we alphabetize the references? Last I checked, Hoskyns comes after Fox...
• I randomly googled three sentences and nothing showed up except mirrors. Earwig's tool shows no copyright violations.

Otherwise everything looks good. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to @Ealdgyth:

1. Done.
2. The shortened footnotes like that use the name of the publisher, though abbreviated, so I don't think its too confusing. To say that the "In Memoriam" document, for example, was authored by the UDPS is not strictly true (assuming there were individuals behind its creation), though it was certainly published by them. I didn't think it was unprecedented or incorrect to use the publisher in the shorthand, but I'll change it if necessary.
3. As per above.
4. OCLCs added where applicable.
5. Done.
6. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:38, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

On the authors/links/short cites - there is such a thing as corporate authorship - one thing I've done in the past is use "Staff" as the author... since obviously someone is writing the information... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Right, but don't the citation templates recommend saying <!--Staff writer(s); no by-line.--> in the author parameter for that? So that doesn't even display in the full citation, and even if it did, a shortened footnote that says "Staff writer 1999, p. 3" seems even more ambiguous than one that lists the publisher instead. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:07, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

My concern here is that if someone can't or doesn't know that the links take them to the full citation - they won't be able to figure out what full citation corresponds to "UDPS 1999". There is no "author" listed in the references section that is "UDPS" - (for that matter, the abbreviation UDPS doesn't appear at ALL in the references, but that's hopefully going to be fixed another way). That short citation goes to ""In Memoriam : Marcel Lihau: 1931 - 1999" (in French). Union pour la Démocratie et le Progrès Social. 1999. Archived from the original on 10 March 2000. Retrieved 25 July 2017." So ... there isn't an abbreviation UDPS, the date doesn't appear at the front like the other full citations, and the first bit is "In Memoriam"... it isn't at all consistent with the rest of the references which all start "author last name, author first name, (date)". So they won't be able to figure it out as they would be with a citation for "Emmerson 1968" (which is easily matched up with "Emmerson, Donald K. (1968). Students and Politics in Developing Nations. New York: Praeger." if the links don't work (say if it's printed) or if (like many of our readers, I suspect) they don't understand that the linked short citation will take them to the full citation. If you have a lot of these sorts of things, the solution might be "UDPS Staff" or "FCE Staff" or "Africana Library Journal Staff". I see this as a problem for all the full citations that lack an author. (And they almost all share the abbreviation issue I alluded to above also). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:16, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: I see what you mean. I've made changes accordingly to the citations. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Gertanis

• The lede section is too long, in particular the mid section.
• A prose problem running throughout is the repetitiveness in sentence construction. Many lines go like: "He/Lihau - in year - action - at place"
• "Marcel Lihau was born on 9 September 1931 in Bumba, Équateur Province, Belgian Congo.[1][a] He was the eldest of eight children." — you can combine those sentences
• "...a school mostly unavailable to Congolese" — needs def article
• We have 'enroll' twice in this paragraph. Try 'register' e.g.
• You might want to link Latin, Greek, and Flemish to Classical Latin, Ancient Greek, Flemish language
• "By January 1963 he had become the first Congolese to receive a law degree, earning it with distinction." — what distinction?
• Would be nice with some translations of the French union names
• "...the decision significantly strengthened their bargaining position with the Belgians" — Which Belgians? Who?
• "Lihau subsequently sat in on the political portion of the conference as an observer on behalf of the AGEC." — was it a sit-in? I am confused by the use of prepositions (sat in on)
• "that the Congolese adopt one system or the other to ensure the integrity of their country in the future." — too verbose, try 'future integrity'
• "Lihau subsequently participated in the economic conference that took place from April until May that addressed the economic transition that the Congo would undergo." — "that...that"
• What's a 'general mutiny'? Also, what kind of coup did Mobuto launch?
• "Lihau was appointed to be commissioner general of justice."

Oppose for now - on criteria 1a. Gertanis (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2017 (UTC) Tentative support - I'm still not crazy about the prose, but I do appreciate Indy beetle's reply to that point. I guess this is the best article on Mr. Lihau we'll be able to have, provided the sources at hand. Best, Gertanis (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2017 (UTC).
Response to @Gertanis:

1. Could you be more clear about this? I know it may seem large in comparison to the rest of the rather small article, but it properly summarizes all the info on Lihau. I'm not sure how I could slim it any further without removing important information about him.
2. Aye, I've already had another point this out to me. I've made some revisions to address this, though I most say that it's hard to avoid the listing style as the info on Lihau's activities is limited to a point where I can only state what he was doing in a particular year. So I've tried mixing up between saying "In 19XX" and "The following year", etc.
3. Done.
4. Do you mean it should read "a school mostly unavailable to (the) Congolese"? If so, I don't know why this is necessary. "Congolese" is the proper plural term for nationals of the Congo. If there was a sentence that read "This is a school mostly unavailable to Americans" it would be grammatically correct.
5. Changed second enroll to "admitted".
6. Done.
7. The source is unclear about this, though I would assume it's referring to Latin honors.
8. Done.
9. Changed to "Belgian government".
10. By this I meant to imply that he attended the conference in a more passive role than the other participants, though I suppose this is already covered by saying he was only an "observer". Replaced "sat in on" with "attended".
11. Done.
12. Revised as "participated in the April to May conference that addressed the economic transition that the Congo would undergo".
13. Revised to say "widespread mutiny". As for Mobutu's action, it was a bloodless military coup. He didn't actually assume power, but formed a "College of Commissioners" to govern the country like a technocracy while declaring President Kasa-Vubu and Prime Minister Lumumba to be "neutralized" (deprived of political power). Parliament was also technically suspended. I have chosen not to explain the coup in detail in the article because its implications were very complex and have little to do with Lihau's career. For example, Kasa-Vubu was able to partially reassert his political power within a month of the coup, while Lumumba attempted to flee to the eastern portion of the country to reestablish his government. This resulted in the latter's arrest and execution in early 1961.
14. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 17:03, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

• Just a thought: do we really need the 'See also'-section? For the article to be comprehensive, those articles should be linked in the prose, right? Gertanis (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

@Gertanis: See also section removed. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Mike Christie

I'll copyedit as I read through; please revert if I screw anything up.

• "Lihau was able to achieve post-primary education": "achieve" is a slightly odd way to say this. For the lead, could we make this "Lihau became the first Congolese to study law, and attended Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium with the help of sympathetic Jesuit educators", stealing a couple of phrases from the body of the article?
• "He retained the position, continuously advocating for judicial independence": I don't really see support for this in the body; and "continuously" is probably not the word needed here even if the sources support it -- perhaps "continually", or more likely "repeatedly".
• "He continuously advocated for democracy in the Congo": as with the point above, I don't see support for this in the body, which only talks about the conference he founded while in the US.
• The links to sources in footnotes 2, 10, and 12 don't work.
• "president of the small Congolese-Ruanda-Urundi students' union in Belgium, Association Générale des Étudiants Congolais en Belgique (AGEC, General Association of Congolese Students in Belgium)." This is quite dense, and the reader doesn't really need both the French and English; at least one could be relegated to a footnote. How about "president of the AGEC, the small Congolese-Ruanda-Urundi students' union in Belgium." with both English and French in a footnote from "AGEC"?
• "only veiling such autonomy, not eliminating it": a great phrase, but I don't really understand what is meant by it. Can we get some inline clarification? It seems to be a fairly important point.
• "The following August Lihau joined several of his colleagues": I think this is August 1982, but can't be certain;I'd suggest adding the year.
• "Conference Nationale Souverain": a sentence about the impact or lack of impact of the conference's recommendations would be helpful.
• The article on Lihau's wife makes it sound as though the marriage survived but they lived separately because of persecution. This article makes it sound as though the persecution caused the marriage to effectively end, rather than just making them live separately. Can you confirm that this is what the sources say?
• Since Sophie had a moderately senior role at UNESCO, and was also unusual in being the first Congolese women to get a degree, I think a sentence or two more about her is warranted.

That's everything, except for the discussion about capitalization we're having on the article talk page. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Response to @Mike Christie:

1. Revised as "Lihau attended the Université catholique de Louvain in Belgium with the help of sympathetic Jesuit educators, becoming the first Congolese to study law."
2. Excised "continuously".
3. Excised "continuously". I'm drawn to conclude this from mostly minor news reports I've seen from the 1980s and 1990s, which often quote Lihau saying something critical about Zaire. It seems certain media outlets found him to be a good source of commentary whenever they were doing a story on the country. They quotes mostly insignificant on their own and, though fascinating (in 1988 he remarked that "Mobutu is the constitution in Zaire"), might be difficult to smoothly incorporate into the article.
4. Fixed.
5. Originally it was just the French and then the acronym. Another reviewer (Gertanis) requested that I add the English translations. I personally think the translations are unnecessary, as they are of proper names. Unfortunately, MoS is lacking in guidance on this matter. It seems consensus between reviewers might have to determine the solution.

   OK; could we compromise by keeping the French and acronym, as you originally had it, but with the English translation in a footnote? I think that would meet Gertanis's request and would not clutter up the text too much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Done. -Indy beetle (talk)

1. I've kept the wording close to the source, which says, "[Lihau] argued that the 1974 Constitution did not eliminate judicial independence, but merely veiled it." The source does explain some of his reasoning (alongside that of an agreeing magistrate) but I can only see it in Google Books snippet view, which makes it difficult to work out the details. I have been able to extract, "Justice Lihau explained that the name 'Judicial Council' itself obscured the reality of a continuing judicial power and was chosen for political reasons." As the source explains, "Judicial Council" was the new term the 1974 Constitution used to refer to the judicial branch of the MPR (Dictator Mobutu's political party and the official institution of the state). It notes, "Instead of declaring the independence of the magistracy [like the previous charters], the 1974 Constitution states that the magistrate is independent in his mission to determine what the law provides." It also says that Lihau acknowledged that he, as a magistrate, issued opinions in the name of Mobutu. Make of this what you will. With my limited knowledge on the 1974 Constitution, I surmise that Lihau's thoughts were probably something along the lines of "Though the judiciary is now nominally integrated into Mobutu's administration, this is simply a political motion to represent the unity of the MPR, the government, and the nation. It shall function independently of the executive as before." Mobutu obviously disagreed.

   How about requesting the relevant source pages at WP:RX? I've had very good luck there, and I would feel much more comfortable supporting this article for promotion if I knew you'd had a chance to fully review what sounds like a relevant source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 08:30, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I've obtained the two pages in their entirety and added the relevant information to the article. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

1. *1983. Done.
2. For Lihau's purposes, we're leaning more on the lacking side. The legacy of the CNS was, as Congolese historian Georges Nzongola-Ntalaja put it in 2004, political by nature, while the institutional framework it produced (including Lihau's constitutional recommendations, I presume) was "no longer viable" because it is "outdated and impossible to reconstruct in any meaningful way". Besides, one could argue that the real turning point in the Congo for political progress was Mobutu's ousting in 1997 via civil war. In the article I've written "The conference disbanded in December 1992 having greatly reinvigorated democratic thought in the country but ultimately failing to enact significant institutional change."
3. Ah, that's because I used two sources in this article and only one for the Kanza page. Fox was rather vague about their separation, but does say that it was because of how Lihau's activities had brought government abuse upon him. The UDPS statement uses the word "separated" (translated from French, but I double checked to make sure it wasn't "divorced") to describe the couple and mentions that this separation occurred in the late 1970s. So I think this article gives the more correct impression. Plus, this 1991 news bulletin refers to Kanza as Lihau's "ex-wife".
4. Changed to "Lihau married future politician Sophie Kanza". I'm trying to keep it as brief as possible, and it's complicated because at the time of their marriage Kanza only had her university degree and was not yet working at the UN or in the government.

-Indy beetle (talk) 17:54, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Support. The last edit addresses the outstanding question I had above about what "veiling" the autonomy of the judiciary meant. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:50, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Vanamonde

In general, I'd say this is solid work. I'm a little concerned by the length, but I trust that all important sources have been scoured, in which case this is what it is.

• "was admitted in the university." Should this be "admitted to the university, or is this an EngVar thing?
• Can you verify that the punctuation at the end of " "Front Commun"[c].[1] " is what it needs to be? It looks a bit odd.
• Little concerned by the use of the USPS source in that case: it should be a an independent source, ideally. Most other uses of the USPS source are for non-controversial stuff.
• Wondering if "initial activities" would be better titled "early activities"
• "Shortly after independence," I think you need a sentence before this saying something like "Congo became independent from Belgium in..." It's confusing, otherwise.
• "reached an impasse" over what?
• "negotiate with the rebellious province's leaders" negotiate over what? And what came of this?
• " In July he worked alongside Cyrille Adoula and Jean Bolikango in negotiating with the Stanleyville government." Negotiating what? and what was the result?
• I think organization names that are in French should carry an English translation, perhaps in parentheses.
• "that concentrated the government's authority in Mobutu. In spite of it, Lihau supported the independence of the judiciary" I am confused by this. Mobutu concentrated authority in himself: but Lihau supported the independence of the judiciary: how are the two related? The second half of that sentence, about Lihau's interpretation of the constitution, is clear enough, but the first half is not.
• "He explained that the constitution" explained in what context?
• In general I think a little bit detail is necessary in that section. Something about what Mobutu's reform did to judicial independence, which would make clear why Lihau's position was in opposition to it.
• There's a couple of places where sources are out of order; the easiest way to fix this that I have found is to search for "][" and verify that all results are correct.
• "at the time presiding over a group of exiled politicians in Brussels" I find the phrase "presiding over" to be strange here: either he was seen as an unofficial spokesperson by an informal group, or he was an official spokesperson for a formal group. Which was it?
• "a federal system that would be able maintain the national integrity of the Congo while respecting its diversity." This is just a little too fluffy for me. Either we should say precisely what it did (did it establish regional quotas for instance?) or that it was described as doing so.
• Similarly, I think the next line requires in-text attribution, though if this is actually the consensus view among scholars, then that's okay, but we should have another citation or so.
• "Lihau went back to the United States to receive medical treatment." When?
• I think the personal life section is structured a little strangely. I'd suggest merging the first sentence into the "commemoration" paragraph, and removing that section 3 title, which really isn't needed.

Response to @Vanamonde93:

1. Not sure of the conventions on this, but it does sound better and seems to be correct. Changed as suggested.
2. Yes, as the footnote applies only to the phrase "Front Commun". If I tacked it on to the end of sentence it would appear to apply to the whole thing.
3. Not ideal, perhaps, though Kanza (1978) does at least verify that Lihau was among the members of the student union that conversed with the Congolese delegations at the conference before it took place. Writer Norbert MBU-MPUTU does say in his self-published book that it was under the direction of Lihau that the delegations formed the Front. I think our best affirmation of the UDPS claim is this page 185 of this book which states that Lihau gave a speech to the Congolese delegations at the meeting during which he "stressed the imperative need to present a common front of all Congolese parties to Belgium" (roughly translated from French). As side note, this reliable source confirms that Lihau was at the conference to present the first student union paper.
4. Done.
5. In the previous subsection I do say that the Round Table Conference concluded with an agreement that the Congo would become independent on 30 June 1960. I feel like it would be redundant to restate this.
6. Revised as "President Joseph Kasa-Vubu fired Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba in September 1960 but the latter refused to leave his post, creating a political impasse."
7. The source is not specific about this or Lihau's role, though I can say that the negotiations probably had to do with Katanga wanting a confederate system of government to allow more provincial autonomy.
8. The Stanleyville government, led by Lumumba's deputy prime minister (as Lumumba was dead by early 1961), rejected the authority of the central government led by Joseph Ileo, as they had believed that both Kasa-Vubu's firing of Lumumba and Mobutu's coup were illegal. Lihau, Adoula, and Bolikango were negotiating with it to see if they could compromise to get Parliament reconvened and discuss the formation of a new government. The negotiations did result in Parliament reconvening on 22 July 1961. I've added a new source and revised the article to explain this.
9. The translations are available in footnotes. See the "Notes" section.
10. Revised to say "That year a new constitution was promulgated that concentrated the government's authority in Mobutu as President. In spite of such centralisation, Lihau supported the independence of the judiciary".
11. I'm not sure, as the author of the relevant source cited supra and I only have two pages of that book. It could have been written case law, though I'm not certain of this. All that I know is that the relevant comments were stated/published in 1974, not long after the 1974 constitution was promulgated.
12. The implication I get from the source is that Mobutu wanted to final say in the decisions of the courts. It reads, "The Constitutions of 1964 and 1967 proclaimed judicial independence[...]Yet the creation, of the one party state called into question the government's commitment to an independent judiciary.[...]Instead of declaring the independence of the judiciary, the 1974 Constitution states that the magistrate is independent in his mission to determine what the law provides.[...]Unfortunately, Justice Lihau's commitment to an independent judiciary soon ran afoul of President Mobutu's political authority." There's not really any more detail between that and what I've already mentioned in the article.
13. Fixed.
14. The source directly states (translated from French) that Lihau was "presiding over a meeting of all political parties and organizations of the exiled opposition". Changed "group" to "meeting" in the text of the article.
15. Good point. Revised to say "recommended a federal system that was intended to maintain the national integrity".
16. I think my above revision should handle this, as the intention of the author's of a document to solve a problem is a much smaller claim than one that says said document could actually solve the problem.
17. The source doesn't say specifically, it was just sometime after the conference. Could've been in 1993.
18. Done.

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

• Much better, thank you. I'd say there's only one outstanding issue: still not too happy with the wording about judicial independence. I would use "X in spite of Y" only when Y is actually preventing or trying to prevent X. That is not the case here. Mobutu centralized power, but he did not prevent Lihau from supporting an independent judiciary. I might phrase it as "Lihau supported the independence of the judiciary, and despite Mobutu's centralisation, interpreted the document as only veiling judicial autonomy, not eliminating it." You may phrase it differently, I suppose, but the "in spite of" needs to move to the bit it applies to. Vanamonde (talk) 04:43, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• @Vanamonde93: Revised to say "That year a new constitution was promulgated that concentrated the government's authority in Mobutu as President. Lihau supported the independence of the judiciary and, despite Mobutu's centralisation, interpreted the document as only veiling such autonomy, not eliminating it. He explained that the constitution's references..." -Indy beetle (talk) 15:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support on prose: my comments have been addressed. Vanamonde (talk) 17:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Coordinator comment: I think this is pretty close to promotion now, but glancing through I noted that we might slip slightly into proseline in places: the lead in particular seems to have a date, or at least some indication of time, in almost every sentence. It might be worth someone taking a quick look at that to see if it can be smoothed. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

@Sarastro1: I've made a revision to the lead to address one of the potential proseline concerns. As for the rest, other editors have mentioned this issue. See comment #2 I made to Gertanis in response to their reservations on that matter. I basically state that by removing the dates (which seems to be my last option) I believe I would be taking away valuable information from the lead. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:28, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Comments from Dank

• "disband.CITEREFRIIA_staff1980": ?
• Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 21:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Response to @Dank:

1. Fixed citation.
2. Thanks for the catch on "subsequently". I've made some minor alterations but for the most part I agree with your edits.

-Indy beetle (talk) 02:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.