Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

I will review this article. It looks likely, on the face of it, that it will easily pass GA, but in order to help the editors I will give it a full review report, though the promotion will be against GA criteria. Because of the article's length, and pressure on my time, the review will be in sections, spread over several days. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Some comments on the lead and early life sections

  • Lead: the description of Foccart as a spin-doctor reads oddly. A spin-doctor distorts policies to present them in a favourable light to the benefit of his political masters. Is this what Foccart did for de Gaulle and Pompidou? Also, I don't think the term had been invented at that time.
  • Childhood and education
    • As well as the link, we need to know the connection between Houphouët and the Baoulé. Was this his tribal group?
    • "He was the son of a Houphouet". What does this mean?
    • Re dates of education; are all of these dates authenticated? Did he earn a teaching degree at 16? If so, what is the relationship between this qualification and a standard university degree? Also, what are we to make of these dates if, as you suggest, he may have been seven years older?
      • Of course they're authenticated; that's the purpose of refs. It is very likely that he did not earn a teaching degree at 16, since he might have been 7 years older. The École William Ponty was not a university per se, so it could not give out university degrees. --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 12:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
        • I think Brian's asking whether the references confirmed when he received his degree/diploma (do they have a document confirming the year when H-B graduated). Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
          • You say it is very likely that he did not earn his teaching degree at 16 because he might have been 7 years older. By the same reasoning, therefore, it is "very likely" that he started secondary school at 17. Yes? I don't doubt that you have used the dates provided by your references, but references are not of themselves authentications, and there seems to be something not fitting somewhere. My question remains - what are we to make of these dates if he was indeed seven years older? Brianboulton ( talk) 22:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Medical career
    • The following sentence is in need of much attention/punctuation: "Deciding to act, he led a movement of farmers hostile to the major white farmers and to the economic policies of the colonizers which favoured them in 1932" I don't really know where to begin on this one, but as a minimum, "by 1932" should be near the beginning of the sentence, not at the end, "colonizers" should be "colonial government", and "them" has to be specified. The whole sentence needs a complete reconstruction.
    • The phrase "chef de carton" needs to e explained on first mention.
  • Chef de carton

More will follow. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

More later. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I will continue with the review later. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, must rest now. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Note to editors: I have so far spent many hours on this review, and am only at the half-way mark. My intention, as stated at the beginning, was to give as much help as possible to the editors by providing a close review of the text, rather than general comments. The number of issues I have had to raise, together with fixing typos and some copyediting, also the considerable length of the article, have greatly extended my time commitment. My readthrough of the second half indicates that an equally large number of issues are likely to arise, and I simply don't have the time to continue in the same way.

What I propose is this. I shall put the article on a seven-day hold. That should give the editors time to deal with the remaining issues from my detailed review, and also to find someone to check over the prose in the second half of the article. I am impressed by the amount of work that has gone into this article, and I find the subject-matter interesting, but the prose standard, overall, is quite poor and frankly, hard work to get through. Some of this may be due to it's being translated, but there are numerous careless mistakes and uncorrected typos throughout the text. I also believe that the editors have been over-ambitious in the amount of detail they have included, and that a judicious pruning would be a good idea. At the end of the seven-day period, I will read the article again, and conclude the GA review at that point. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Alright, we'll get to work. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Enigma message 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Resumed review

I am resuming my review, not on a line-by-line basis, but commenting on each remaining section in turn. I'll post as I go, and try to finish before the end of today. Here are my first comments:-

  • The sections entitled Alignment with France and Mutual support are essentially about the same thing, and should be combined into a single, much shorter section. There is way too much detail here; a few simple sentences stating HB’s policy alignment with France in various African post-colonial crises, and over relations with South Africa, will be sufficient. The general policy principles, not the details, are important. The second section contains the unexplained term “burkinababes”, and an obvious mistranslation “which irked of French involvement”.
    • Removed "Mutual support" section heading. H-B's policy alignment with France is one of the most important facets of his political career. I can trim that section a bit, but I don't feel comfortable removing that much detail. This was all important aspects of H-B's rule. Added link to "burkinabés"—it's the demonym for the people of Burkina Faso. Reworded the coup sentences. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Opposition to Soviet Union and China
  • Economic policies in 1960s and 1970s
    • Try to avoid repetition of "most notably" in first para. Too many detailed facts and figures in 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. The broad issue of economic progress has been fully established in para 1, and it would be better to go from there straight to para 4: "This economic progress profoundly altered..." etc The first sentence of the final para also needs some attention, "Mainly in the economy" is not appropriate in a section entirely about economic progress. The "rare example" statement is opinion, unless specifically cited. I assume that the terms "Ivorian miracle", "Sage of Africa" and "The Old One" are all found in citation [11].

Review continues. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Economy on brink of collapse
    • The first para would have more impact if it was preceded by "However," and shifted to become the final paragraph of the previous section.
    • Again, the clarity of the article is affected by over-detailing. The following sentence is particularly difficult to unravel: "Beginning from 1979, in order to contain a sudden drop in exported goods prices, the government attempted to resist the tariffs on raw materials established by the international markets by trying to impose artificially higher prices." I’d stick to the basic facts: the economy declined as a result of a fall in world coffee and cocoa prices, HB’s efforts in London to negotiate a price agreement failed, the petrochemical industry suffered during the world recession of the late 1980s, and the overseas debt reached monumental proportions. All this can be said in simple general terms, in an article which is basically about a president rather than his country.

Review to be continued and completed shortly. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Funeral – no particular comment, excellently written
  • Aftermath: several problems here, of uncited statements (e.g. "had neither his predecessor’s vision nor his charisma"), and awkward phrasings (e.g. "conceived in 1995 of the concept of…" Since this section isn’t really about HB, I wonder if it needs to be here at all, especially after the impressive funeral section. I’d consider dropping it.
  • Personal life: Much of this information, particularly in the first paragraph, belongs in the Early life section. I think it’s a great shame to end the article with this section of fairly trivial details, and wonder if such details as are thought necessary could be inserted earlier in the article, which could then end on the grand notes of the funeral and peace prize.

Naturally, you will need time to respond to and/or implement these suggestions. I would very much like to see this article promoted if attention can be given to these points. In particular, in my view the readability of the article will be much improved by some fairly bold editing of overdetailed sections. Brianboulton ( talk) 12:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Added later: I have repositioned four left-side images which appeared to be violating WP:MoS by appearing directly under subheadings. Two are still on the left, dropped down slightly, two I have shifted over to the right. If you're unhappy with my positionings and have better ideas within MoS, please go ahead. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for handling that, Brian. I always forget about WP:MOSIMAGES! Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Final GA Review comments

General: I feel this is an important article, which has been massively researched and painstakingly compiled. Its main problem, at least at the start of the review, was that it was far from easy to read, due in my view to a mixture of somewhat indifferent prose and considerable overdetailing. The prose has been made clearer, and will resumably improve further when the current copyediting exercise is finished. Also, some 700-odd words have been excised during the review, as detail has been pared down. This has made the article distinctly more readable. I think there is still scope for further reduction, and recommend that this is seriously considered before the article is taken to FAC.

GA criteria

  • Well-written: Pass (marginal). There is a variability in the prose standard, some sections being very well written, others less so. A thorough copyedit should improve matters.
  • Factually accurate: Pass: I have considered WP:NONENG here. If I could understand more clearly what this regulation is about, I might have something to say about verifiability, but since I can't, I can only say that your sources look reliable to me.
  • Broad coverage: Pass, most definitely.
  • Neutral: Pass
  • Stable: Pass
  • Images: Pass. The location map could be larger. Some images appear to lack descriptions and author information, so watch for the FAC image police.

Overall: Pass. I have spent a good deal more time on this than normally do on GA reviews, because I have seen this as preparation for featured status. I hope my participation and comments have helped; there is more work to do. Good luck if you do decide to take it forward. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Félix_Houphouët-Boigny/GA1&oldid=1136746772"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

I will review this article. It looks likely, on the face of it, that it will easily pass GA, but in order to help the editors I will give it a full review report, though the promotion will be against GA criteria. Because of the article's length, and pressure on my time, the review will be in sections, spread over several days. Brianboulton ( talk) 18:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Some comments on the lead and early life sections

  • Lead: the description of Foccart as a spin-doctor reads oddly. A spin-doctor distorts policies to present them in a favourable light to the benefit of his political masters. Is this what Foccart did for de Gaulle and Pompidou? Also, I don't think the term had been invented at that time.
  • Childhood and education
    • As well as the link, we need to know the connection between Houphouët and the Baoulé. Was this his tribal group?
    • "He was the son of a Houphouet". What does this mean?
    • Re dates of education; are all of these dates authenticated? Did he earn a teaching degree at 16? If so, what is the relationship between this qualification and a standard university degree? Also, what are we to make of these dates if, as you suggest, he may have been seven years older?
      • Of course they're authenticated; that's the purpose of refs. It is very likely that he did not earn a teaching degree at 16, since he might have been 7 years older. The École William Ponty was not a university per se, so it could not give out university degrees. --I'm an Editor of the wiki citation needed 12:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
        • I think Brian's asking whether the references confirmed when he received his degree/diploma (do they have a document confirming the year when H-B graduated). Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
          • You say it is very likely that he did not earn his teaching degree at 16 because he might have been 7 years older. By the same reasoning, therefore, it is "very likely" that he started secondary school at 17. Yes? I don't doubt that you have used the dates provided by your references, but references are not of themselves authentications, and there seems to be something not fitting somewhere. My question remains - what are we to make of these dates if he was indeed seven years older? Brianboulton ( talk) 22:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Medical career
    • The following sentence is in need of much attention/punctuation: "Deciding to act, he led a movement of farmers hostile to the major white farmers and to the economic policies of the colonizers which favoured them in 1932" I don't really know where to begin on this one, but as a minimum, "by 1932" should be near the beginning of the sentence, not at the end, "colonizers" should be "colonial government", and "them" has to be specified. The whole sentence needs a complete reconstruction.
    • The phrase "chef de carton" needs to e explained on first mention.
  • Chef de carton

More will follow. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

More later. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC) reply

I will continue with the review later. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Sorry, must rest now. Brianboulton ( talk) 23:33, 13 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Note to editors: I have so far spent many hours on this review, and am only at the half-way mark. My intention, as stated at the beginning, was to give as much help as possible to the editors by providing a close review of the text, rather than general comments. The number of issues I have had to raise, together with fixing typos and some copyediting, also the considerable length of the article, have greatly extended my time commitment. My readthrough of the second half indicates that an equally large number of issues are likely to arise, and I simply don't have the time to continue in the same way.

What I propose is this. I shall put the article on a seven-day hold. That should give the editors time to deal with the remaining issues from my detailed review, and also to find someone to check over the prose in the second half of the article. I am impressed by the amount of work that has gone into this article, and I find the subject-matter interesting, but the prose standard, overall, is quite poor and frankly, hard work to get through. Some of this may be due to it's being translated, but there are numerous careless mistakes and uncorrected typos throughout the text. I also believe that the editors have been over-ambitious in the amount of detail they have included, and that a judicious pruning would be a good idea. At the end of the seven-day period, I will read the article again, and conclude the GA review at that point. Brianboulton ( talk) 15:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Alright, we'll get to work. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:31, 14 August 2008 (UTC) reply
Let me know if there's anything I can do to help. Enigma message 19:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Resumed review

I am resuming my review, not on a line-by-line basis, but commenting on each remaining section in turn. I'll post as I go, and try to finish before the end of today. Here are my first comments:-

  • The sections entitled Alignment with France and Mutual support are essentially about the same thing, and should be combined into a single, much shorter section. There is way too much detail here; a few simple sentences stating HB’s policy alignment with France in various African post-colonial crises, and over relations with South Africa, will be sufficient. The general policy principles, not the details, are important. The second section contains the unexplained term “burkinababes”, and an obvious mistranslation “which irked of French involvement”.
    • Removed "Mutual support" section heading. H-B's policy alignment with France is one of the most important facets of his political career. I can trim that section a bit, but I don't feel comfortable removing that much detail. This was all important aspects of H-B's rule. Added link to "burkinabés"—it's the demonym for the people of Burkina Faso. Reworded the coup sentences. Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 13:59, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Opposition to Soviet Union and China
  • Economic policies in 1960s and 1970s
    • Try to avoid repetition of "most notably" in first para. Too many detailed facts and figures in 2nd and 3rd paragraphs. The broad issue of economic progress has been fully established in para 1, and it would be better to go from there straight to para 4: "This economic progress profoundly altered..." etc The first sentence of the final para also needs some attention, "Mainly in the economy" is not appropriate in a section entirely about economic progress. The "rare example" statement is opinion, unless specifically cited. I assume that the terms "Ivorian miracle", "Sage of Africa" and "The Old One" are all found in citation [11].

Review continues. Brianboulton ( talk) 10:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Economy on brink of collapse
    • The first para would have more impact if it was preceded by "However," and shifted to become the final paragraph of the previous section.
    • Again, the clarity of the article is affected by over-detailing. The following sentence is particularly difficult to unravel: "Beginning from 1979, in order to contain a sudden drop in exported goods prices, the government attempted to resist the tariffs on raw materials established by the international markets by trying to impose artificially higher prices." I’d stick to the basic facts: the economy declined as a result of a fall in world coffee and cocoa prices, HB’s efforts in London to negotiate a price agreement failed, the petrochemical industry suffered during the world recession of the late 1980s, and the overseas debt reached monumental proportions. All this can be said in simple general terms, in an article which is basically about a president rather than his country.

Review to be continued and completed shortly. Brianboulton ( talk) 11:08, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

  • Funeral – no particular comment, excellently written
  • Aftermath: several problems here, of uncited statements (e.g. "had neither his predecessor’s vision nor his charisma"), and awkward phrasings (e.g. "conceived in 1995 of the concept of…" Since this section isn’t really about HB, I wonder if it needs to be here at all, especially after the impressive funeral section. I’d consider dropping it.
  • Personal life: Much of this information, particularly in the first paragraph, belongs in the Early life section. I think it’s a great shame to end the article with this section of fairly trivial details, and wonder if such details as are thought necessary could be inserted earlier in the article, which could then end on the grand notes of the funeral and peace prize.

Naturally, you will need time to respond to and/or implement these suggestions. I would very much like to see this article promoted if attention can be given to these points. In particular, in my view the readability of the article will be much improved by some fairly bold editing of overdetailed sections. Brianboulton ( talk) 12:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Added later: I have repositioned four left-side images which appeared to be violating WP:MoS by appearing directly under subheadings. Two are still on the left, dropped down slightly, two I have shifted over to the right. If you're unhappy with my positionings and have better ideas within MoS, please go ahead. Brianboulton ( talk) 21:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for handling that, Brian. I always forget about WP:MOSIMAGES! Nishkid64 ( Make articles, not wikidrama) 22:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Final GA Review comments

General: I feel this is an important article, which has been massively researched and painstakingly compiled. Its main problem, at least at the start of the review, was that it was far from easy to read, due in my view to a mixture of somewhat indifferent prose and considerable overdetailing. The prose has been made clearer, and will resumably improve further when the current copyediting exercise is finished. Also, some 700-odd words have been excised during the review, as detail has been pared down. This has made the article distinctly more readable. I think there is still scope for further reduction, and recommend that this is seriously considered before the article is taken to FAC.

GA criteria

  • Well-written: Pass (marginal). There is a variability in the prose standard, some sections being very well written, others less so. A thorough copyedit should improve matters.
  • Factually accurate: Pass: I have considered WP:NONENG here. If I could understand more clearly what this regulation is about, I might have something to say about verifiability, but since I can't, I can only say that your sources look reliable to me.
  • Broad coverage: Pass, most definitely.
  • Neutral: Pass
  • Stable: Pass
  • Images: Pass. The location map could be larger. Some images appear to lack descriptions and author information, so watch for the FAC image police.

Overall: Pass. I have spent a good deal more time on this than normally do on GA reviews, because I have seen this as preparation for featured status. I hope my participation and comments have helped; there is more work to do. Good luck if you do decide to take it forward. Brianboulton ( talk) 20:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Félix_Houphouët-Boigny/GA1&oldid=1136746772"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE