Talk:Peter Obi/GA3

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: SafariScribe (talk · contribs) 22:13, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Czarking0 (talk · contribs) 14:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I currently have a lot of comments under coverage just in the first section. I don't think it is worth being more through until those are addressed.

Hi Czarking0, I will address all the concern, but please give me time. I will ping you when am done. Thanks.Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 19:50, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Czarking0, I haven't gotten to add yet, but I'd love to understand them well. Here it goes, would you mind continuing the review, and towards each one, you let me know what to add there, and I will do that asap. For instance, you could leave the original comments where they are, and then just say start from the beginning, when we reach each segment/section, then ask me to do that. That may be the only way of getting those fixed. I don't know if you understood the logic? Thanks. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 16:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I understand you meaning. I have expanded my review for what I had time to do today. Czarking0 (talk) 23:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Controversy section is a little iffy. Panama papers is the only thing in here. It could make sense to incorporate this into other sections. I recommend you come back to this point after addressing the others. The governorship section includes the SEC and other roles which it should not
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	I am made some mention of citations that need publishers below. Other than that I have not found any issues yet. I have not been through them all and I will need to recheck if the coverage is expanded.
	2b. 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).	I think a major question is are the sources reliable? I expect that a lot of these are used on several WP Nigeria pages but I am not familiar with them so if they are not on the WP:RSP then we should investigate each of them and demonstrate reliability. Here are the sources I'd like to see. Theafricareport.com The Sun Nigeria - I expect that this is connected to WP:THESUN which indicates it should not be used Vanguard News Council on Foreign Relations - good for the claim it is sourcing FN 6 needs the publisher, at a glance Premium Times does not seem unreliable. Seems good for this claim People's Gazette appears to be a similar quality to Premium times. Seems good for these claims. France24 is also unfamiliar to me and I think additional diligence is required to verify the reliability of this source or the notability and veracity of the comparison to Macron. Punch seems to be less reliable than other Nigerian sources and I would be more comfortable with additional discussion about its use Daily Trust FN13 seems to be an opinion piece which is not reliable for the claims it is cited on. BusinessDay appears to be a better source and FN17 is good verifying its claims FN 19 needs publisher, at a glance vanguard seems to be a medium reliability source. probably good for the claims it is cited on.
	2c. it contains no original research.	My first analysis cannto find any but I will need to recheck if the coverage is expanded.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	The author and I have discussed this. See previous GA and talk page for more details
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	I think there are some significant coverage issues. However, I understand that there may not be the requisite sources to cover all these points. Here is what I think needs to be added: What are the major differences in platform between Obi and Ngige in the 2003 election What were the results of the 2003 campaign? Any notable difference in the results by certain demographic groups or districts? How does Obi tie into the larger picture of All Progressives Grand Alliance in 2003 Did the 2003 campaign have other notable candidates that Obi was notably differentiated from? Why was he impeached? What were the results of the 2007 election? Again demographic or district differences? How did the public respond to Obi not running? Voter turn out? Anecdotes? On what grounds did he challenge the impeachment? How rare are these type of judicial issues in electoral process in Nigeria? Were other Nigerian politicians facing similar challenges? What were the results of the 2010 election? Again demographic or district differences? Why did Obiano's succession occur? What did he do as governor? Why was he chosen for the SEC role? What did he do at the SEC ? "Obi was named as the running mate to Atiku Abubakar " - for what role? Why was he the running mate?
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	The other issues are so significant, I can't really call something out here as out of scope.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I would probably not pass this article as neutral in the current state. However, it is difficult to say since there is so little coverage. Neutrality concerns I have are: what did he do in office, why was he impeached. I think the percentage of this article that is devoted to panama papers is probably undue weight given how little info there is about anything else.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	I'd give this lukewarm pass. There are quite a few reverted edits. However given that several of those are from IP users and they don't defend their edits I'd let it go unless more issues are brought.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	There are no images. Given that he is a 21st century politician I would expect to be able to find some usable image of him.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.
	7. Overall assessment.