Wikipedia:Featured article review/Barthélemy Boganda/archive1

Barthélemy Boganda

Barthélemy Boganda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Barthélemy Boganda

• Featured article review/Barthélemy Boganda/archive1

Notified: Nishkid64, Biruitorul, Physchim62, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Africa, WikiProject Politics, 27 Nov

I am nominating this featured article for review because my concerns on the talk page (comprehensiveness/well-researched issues based on over-reliance on tertiary sources and neglect of French-language sources) were not addressed. (t · c) buidhe 05:36, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

• @Buidhe: Do you mind elaborating on your problems with the tertiary sources? Some of the prose could definitely use some work, and Time magazine should probably not be used from this time period. Some of the Legacy section is also not really "legacy". For example, Boganda was also the designer of the flag of the Central African Republic and He successfully manipulated religious symbols (clerical garb, crosses, baptism, disciples, acolytes, etc.) for political purposes don't have anything to say directly about his impact' this is just highlighting elements of his career. -Indy beetle (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  Hi, the issue is that the sources cited in the article don't include the full length biography or various academic papers listed on the talk page. Most of the cited sources are either tertiary or don't focus on Boganda in particular. Because there are a lot of publications that aren't cited and the article is fairly short, I don't think the article can be considered "well researched" or "comprehensive" according to the FA criteria. (t · c) buidhe 06:03, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  Understood. I just opened a 2017 article from History in Africa, "The Diaries of Barthélémy Boganda, Priest and Politician in French Equatorial Africa (1910–1959)", and the author opens with "Barthélémy Boganda, a nationalist politician from "Afrique Equatoriale Française" (AEF) in the 1950s, is poorly known in the English-language literature on Africa." So I think it's fair to incorporate some French sources and some of the newer English ones as well. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  Comparison with the French wiki article (also a featured article) really brings home Buidhe's point here - it is three or four times as long and its bibliography takes up a whole page. Some years ago I tried to incorporate the text from the French article into the English one and I was stopped because it wasn't considered appropriate to do that with something of FA status. So, the status seems to me to be getting in the way of improvement. Furius (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

  Agree. While a couple of the sources in the French wiki version likely would not meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP for purposes here, there's definitely evidence there that there are non-English sources that need to be consulted for comprehensiveness. Hog Farm _Talk 20:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

  The 2017 journal article I've been using to rework the Early life section is familiar with the French historiography and I think is much more accurate on the details of things. We definitely seem to be missing some pieces, though I would not advocate simply translating and copying text from the French wiki. -Indy beetle (talk) 06:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  Why not? I'd grant that it would be best to use the fr.lang sources directly, but I have limited access to those. Furius (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  Well, we've got no idea if the Frech wiki version contains copyright violations or original research or similar issues. Ideally someone will come around who can both 1) read French and 2) access the sources. Hog Farm _Talk 18:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

  I’m with HF on that one. If we start copying text without directly reading the sources well have no idea if it’s accurate. -Indy beetle (talk) 19:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

• On further reflection with source material the problem per se isn't a lack of consultation with French historiography. Pierre Kalck is heavily referenced here, and he is primarily a French-language author who once wrote a biography on Boganda (van Walraven cites him several times). There does seem to be more info out there on Boganda though, so the article currently lacks comprehensiveness. It reads more like GA-status. -Indy beetle (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Ok, I've added some more info and updated the citation style, which should make it somewhat easier to edit. The main task is decompressing some of the article text about his political career (like fully explaining the French Community thing), removing editorialising and euphemistic prose (eg Boganda is not only considered the hero and father of his nation or It also robbed the country of a charismatic leader in the Houphouët-Boigny or Senghor mould) and reworking the Legacy section. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:20, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
• Looking at the Titley book, it appears we might have some issues with close paraphrasing, which explains the prose. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:56, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
• There also, unfortunately, seems to be some problems with WP:SYNTH. For example, the string His wife was sentenced to 15 days in prison, but neither served their terms. On 17 June, he was re-elected to the National Assembly with 48% of the vote despite the obstacles placed in his way by the administration and strong opposition by the authorities, colonists, and the missions, with two prominent French candidates seeking to oust him. is supported with a citation to the official National Assembly bio, which only supports the claims that he was reelected with 48% of the vote over two strong French candidates. It says nothing about prison terms or the opposition of the authorities. Thankfully, I've acquired Kalck's 1971 book, the 3rd edition of the Historical Dictionary of the CAR, and Titley's book, so I'm in the process of checking these for problems and am adding new information that seems relevant. -Indy beetle (talk) 10:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

• Ok, folks. Done with my overhaul. Definitely a good idea on the part of Buidhe to bring this to FAR, but I think I've fixed most of the deficiencies. There was definitely a problem with close paraphrasing and cites not sufficiently supporting statements, but I have now laid my eyes on the source material for every citation (save for #11, #101, #119, and #121) and can say with reasonable confidence that that should no longer be an issue. I've also reworked the lede, corrected some details, expanded on his early life and political career, and rewrote the Legacy section in what I think is a more appropriate manner. As far as sufficiently looking into the relevant reliable sources, I think this is an accurate reflection of quality historiography on the subject, with Kalck being the original French-language authority on the CAR and, by extension, Boganda, and van Walraven being the new English language authority on him (the overall citation count has more than doubled, for the record). The article might need a once-over for some typos and whatnot, but I think this is good enough to save its FA status. @Buidhe: @Furius: @Hog Farm: @Biruitorul: What do you guys think? -Indy beetle (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Check throughout for time context needed. As one example, should this be past tense, or use an as of date, or something … as it is cited to 2005. “Mythical perceptions of Boganda's invulnerability persisted after his death,[42] and his presence in Central African collective memory remains politically potent, serving as a unifying element among both the country's elite and the general populace.[118]” SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:45, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  This looks good to me; reviewers, please keep the page watched for WP:FASA followup. As soon as Buidhe et al are satisfied, I can be considered a Close without FARC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

• Looks great from what I can see. I’ve made a couple of small corrections and will be working through the rest, and I’m sure minor issues like the one pointed out above remain to be ironed out, but overall, this much-needed revamp has given us a Boganda good for another decade at least. Many thanks. — Biruitorul ^Talk 14:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Indy beetle:, finished. Question: what might be the Order of the French Nation he received posthumously? Ideally, we should identify it and link the correct award. (Single-digit Google hits for this phrase.) - Biruitorul ^Talk 17:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Kalck recorded it in French, as "Ordre de la Nation Franciase," but I didn't find any mention of that on Wikipedia. It might've been superseded by the Ordre national du Mérite, which was created in 1963. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
      • Historical Dictionary of the CAR, p. 126, has him named a knight of the Legion of honour on 21 May ‘59. The specificity of the reference, and the fact that said award definitely exists, incline me to prefer replacing with a mention of the Legion. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:02, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
        • @Biruitorul: Which edition of the HD? I'm using 2005 and am not seeing that. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
          • @Indy beetle:, it’s 2016, specifically near the end of the entry on Boganda himself. — Biruitorul ^Talk 18:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
            • Done. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
• Ok, the article is definitely much improved and I'll defer to your expertise in terms of the comprehensiveness. So no objection to closing as keep here. (t · c) buidhe 21:44, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

  Close without FARC for me, then. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

HF

• "The soldiers believed this was his name, rendering it "Boganda" and using it as such for the rest of his life" - something is off with phrasing here, as he used it as such for the rest of his life, not the soldiers
  • Changed to "the name was used for the rest of his life". Van Walraven uses the more colloquial phrasing, "the name stuck", and since this was what the soldiers and presumably the missionaries called him until he was baptised, I don't want to imply that Boganda directly chose this name at his young age, but probably acquiesced to it once he was in their care.
• "to see him walk over the water (he did not appear)" - the walking on water link is to a dab page
  • Linked to Jesus walking on water, since that was the probable inspiration (I don't know if pre-colonial CAR cultures had any archetypal attraction to mythological walking on water, but does remain a possibility, hence my indirect link).

Looks good other than those two items, I think close without FARC is appropriate here. Hog Farm _Talk 04:58, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

• Barthélemy
• I noticed the sources use a mix of Barthélemy and Barthélémy, and that we even use the latter in the text once, referring to his baptism. Might it be worth introducing a footnote to his name, to the effect that both variants are recorded? — Biruitorul ^Talk 19:06, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Done. I'll note that most serious sources seem to prefer Barthélémy, though Kalck uses the double-accent in his 1971 book but the single accent in his biography. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

• Call me biased, but for what it's worth I think it's fine to close without FARC unless there are any more issues people think should be addressed. -Indy beetle (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the {{featured article review}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. DrKay (talk) 15:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)