Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Hubert Maga/1

Hubert Maga

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Good article nomination review

Result: No action. The article can, of course, be renominated at any time. Geometry guy 00:10, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking for a community reassessment on this article. It was recently failed for comprehensiveness and prose issues. I believe most of these prose issues were fixed during the GAN, and we can iron the rest of them out during the GAR. As for comprehensiveness, I believe the article is reasonably comprehensive as it is over 50 kb long on a person very little of you have even heard of. (That's not to say more can't be added; I'm having an updated Historical Dictionary of Dahomey shipped to my library on the loaning system.) This was probably with regards to background information that was requected at the GAN on the Dahomeyan political situation. I added some backgrond info, though did not want to overwhelm the article with it. That said, constructive comments are welcome. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:57, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eddy, perhaps the simplest path forward would be to wait until you receive the book via Interlibrary Loan, add relevant material from the new source and then re-submit the article at GAN. Majoreditor (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, renomination is the best way forwards in this case. Geometry guy 19:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, this article is not as comprehensive as it could be, but this is not FAC. I will receive the books, add the material, submit to peer review, and then nominate at FAC. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article was not failed on comprehensiveness, but on breadth, amongst other things. If the GA breadth criterion can't be met, then there's very little chance it'll meet the much more stringent comprehensive criterion of FA. If you still believe that this article was unfairly failed at its GAN review, then you need to make it clear why you believe that. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm basically trying to see if my additions regarding the political background were enough for this to pass GA and, upon further improvement, FA. Malleus, you failed this for poor prose; could you provide further examples? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:27, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have never failed any article because of poor prose. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:35, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You specifically mentioned poor prose at the end of the GA review. Granted it wasn't your only reason, but it is the other reason that I am attempting to form a concensus whether you were right or wrong. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

← The prose isn't bad but will benefit from wordsmithing and copyediting. Take these two examples from the first paragraph:

- In 1951, Maga was elected to the French National Assembly, which has been cited as when regionalist parties arose. This sentence isn't clear. It's difficult to determine the antecedent for the relative pronoun "which". The sentence also sports an awkward passive construction.
  - I think I fixed it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:10, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- At the Assembly, he served in various positions, including Premier from 1959 to 1960. The title "Premier" needn't be capitalized in this context. (See MOS Titles of people: When used generically.)
  - Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 20:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of greater concern are the criterion 3 (breadth) issues raised by the GA reviewers. Why not get the book, work on enhancing the article, and renominate later? Majoreditor (talk) 03:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several books arrived today (not the updated Decalo) and if they are any judge, the article is pretty complete. There might be a few facts worth adding, though not many. The reason I brought this to GAR was because I waited over 40 days for an initial review, and I don't want a repeat. Maga's death date is on May 8 and I would like it to be featured on that day. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sympathise (40 days is not good) but it isn't the purpose of GAR to bypass GAN. I hope (if this GAR endorses the fail) that you will have better luck next time. Geometry guy 19:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]