Wikipedia:Featured article review/Rwanda/archive1

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

The article was kept by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 1:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC) [1].

---

Rwanda

Notified: Amakuru, Lemurbaby, BanyanTree, WikiProject Rwanda, WikiProject Countries

I am nominating this featured article for review because I feel that it currently falls short of being comprehensive and well-researched. Parts of the article are rather dated. For example, the data on religion is from the 2002 census, not the more recent 2012 census, and much of the data in the economy, education and health sections is from the late 2000s. There are some questionable statements, such as "It is not clear who funded the next batch of 100,000 XO-XS laptops nor the additional laptops leading to the 400,000 XO-XS laptops", which is sourced to a wiki site. The section Millennium Development Goal 6 lacks context, with no explanation of what this MDG is. There is a general need to update the article, which quite a few relatively old "as of" statements present. I have personally rewritten the sport section, and have tried to encourage other editors to help with improving the article, but not much progress has been made. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

An inconsistency: the introduction states that "Rwandans are composed of three ethnic groups: the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa", whereas the demographics section states that "the population is drawn from just one ethnic and linguistic group, the Banyarwanda". Cordless Larry (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry: there's a general problem here, because it is quite a hotly disputed topic in sources as to what the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa groups actually are. In some sources, Banyarwanda are regarded as one ethnic group, sharing a language and culture, with Hutu and Tutsi being social classifications, while in other sources the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa are themselves regarded as separate ethnicities. The text tries to explain this issue, and I've changed the lead to match what's in the Demographics section. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:23, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain, but I still think this part needs work. The lede states "The Rwandan population is drawn from just one ethnic and linguistic group, the Banyarwanda, although within this group there are three subgroups: the Hutu, Tutsi and Twa. The Twa are a forest-dwelling pygmy people descended from Rwanda's earliest inhabitants. Scholars disagree on the origins of and differences between the Hutu and Tutsi; some believe differences are derived from former social castes, while others view them as being ethnicities or tribes". The scholars who consider Hutu and Tutsi ethnic groups can't consider that the Rwandan population is drawn from just one ethnic group. I think we need more of a sense that there is disagreement between scholars who think there is one ethnic group, and those who think there are multiple ethnic groups (both in the introduction and the demographics section). Cordless Larry (talk) 15:19, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, Cordless Larry. I think part of the difficulty here is that the term "ethnic group" is not clearly defined. In the UK we tend to talk of an "Anglo Saxon" ethnicity, but that is of course itself a hybrid of various different peoples, not just Angles and Saxons, but some native and other peoples as well. The main source I used in this section is Mamdani's book "When Victims Become Killers", which looks at some of the arguments in the matter but doesn't really give a definitive answer. One thing he says is "If we understand an ethnic group to mean a cultural group, comprising those who speak a common language, then the Banyarwanda must be considered East Africa's largest ethnic group". So he's saying it doesn't matter what their origins are, as long as they share language and culture, then they're a single ethnic group. I've just edited the article and replaced "ethnic and linguistic" with "cultural and linguistic" to make this more clear, and I've removed the bit saying Tutsi and Hutu may be ethnicities, to more explicitly say that those scholars on that side of the fence believe they come from separate origins, but without treading the minefield of whether that means they're separate ethnicities or not. Let me know what else I can do to make this clear. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 14:46, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Amakuru. I think the new text works better than the old, and while there's more that could be said, I think this is about right for a main country article. Cordless Larry (talk) 14:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Education and health

The main focus for my efforts this weekend is going to be bringing the health section into line. I would like some feedback on one thing though - at the time of featuring, this as the version of the article: [2]. Then, education and health were in one paragraph (which I had modeled on a similar paragraph over at Cameroon, an earlier FA). The education part has not changed much, apart from the addition of some over detailed analysis of laptops. The health section, however, has been hived off into a separate section, and largely filled with non encylopedic and over detailed information.

My question is whether it makes sense to fold these two back into one paragraph, with just a summary of the details of each. The thing to bear in mind is that this is strictly a summary article. Country articles can never hope to go into very much detail on any particular topic, which is why we have child articles Education in Rwanda and Health in Rwanda to provide much more detail on that. In fact, the guidance at Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates does not suggest including any detail about education and health at all. Personally I would favour the approach of updating the paragraphs from the FA version, to reflect up to date information, but keeping the two subjects in one short section, as before. What think you?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Quite a few of the country featured articles do have health and education sections, often as sub-sections of demographics. Do they naturally belong together in one section? I'm not sure they do, personally. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I've now rewritten the health section, it gives a general overview, with citations and some relevant statistics, but without going beyond two paragraphs. Let me know what you think.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Amakuru, that now looks much better. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Sport sub-section

Amakuru's post above reminded me that I meant to mention that the sport sub-section that I wrote is currently quite long. There is perhaps a need to create Sport in Rwanda, to move the content of the sport sub-section there, and to summarise it for the Rwanda article. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:17, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I had thought of that myself a while ago. That's a very good idea.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:36, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Things that need updating

Lead

• Confirm relgion figures. - Already done.
• Check females in government posistions fact - Done.

History

• Last paragraph updated for recent developments - Done.

Politics and government

• Mention the two term limit and current proposals to remove it - Done.
• Update with recent sources for criticism of constitution - Done.
• Update numbers of deputies with more recent election, including facts about female majorty - Done.
• Check on latest status of courts (in particular gacaca) - Done.
• Update facts and figures on corruption - Done.
• UPdate cites on the RPF dominance - Done.
• Update relations with France and Francophonie - Done.
• Update relations with Uganda and Congo - Done.

Administrative divisions No changes needed

Geography

• Make sure still 149th largest country (given new countries that have come into place) - Yes it is.
• Make sure climate figures are up to date - Yes.

Economy

• Update GDP figure - Done.
• Update USD exchange rate - Done.
• Update plans for EA shilling - Done.
• Update farming figures, and GDP contribution - Done.
• Update crops - Done.
• Update industrial sector figures and products - Done.
• Update tourism figures - Done.
• Update media and communications - Done.

Infrastructure

• Update water figures - Water is up to date.
• Update electricity figures - Electricity up to date.
• Update transport

Demographics

• Make sure basic figures and densities are up to date - Done.
• UPdate faith figures - Done.
• CHeck languages - Done.

Culture

• Check national holidays - Done.

Cuisine

• Check beers - Done.

Education

• Check and update - Up to date.

General

• Go through all references, check for deadlinks and format correctly.

@Cordless Larry: now that the sport and health has been dealt with, the above is a list of things I'd like to check and update now, based on a read through of the article just now. If you can think of anything else, please let me know. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all your hard work, Amakuru. I'm incredibly busy off-Wikipedia at the moment, but that looks like a good list. If I get some time, I'll help out making the checks you identify. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Note: I've not looked at this for a week or two, but it's still on my to-do list and I hope to get back to the tidy up very soon... please keep open for now!  — Amakuru (talk) 15:22, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

I checked for more recent tourism figures yesterday, but could only find official statistics to 2011, though more recent figures have featured in reports such as this, so they must exist. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I also found this potential source for beers. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:49, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the number of public holidays from 11 to 12, but the source also lists Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha. Are these full public holidays too? If so, it should be 14. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The relevant law suggests that they are official holidays, so I will update to 14. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Cordless Larry. I have no idea why I looked at the new source and thought there were still eleven. I must have counted very badly!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cordless Larry and Amakuru: update on progress here? Nikkimaria (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

I've not been able to commit much time to this, but Amakuru has been chipping away at it. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry it's taking so long, (I've been very busy in real life), but as Cordless Larry says, I have been doing it little by little over the past few weeks. If it's OK I'd like to keep it open until I can polish off the remaining items on the list above, and then we can see where we are. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 08:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: The statement "Clans existed across the Great Lakes region, with around twenty in the area that is now Rwanda." has been tagged for clarification since June 2014. DrKay (talk) 19:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  @DrKay: I was about to look in to this, but I see you've already cleared the sentence in question. Well that's fine.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• Close without FARC. Thank you for keeping the article updated. I have cleared the final tag. DrKay (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
• On the issue of referencing, there are some full citations in amongst the shortened footnotes of the notes section (mostly, if not entirely, my doing). Is this a problem? If it is, I can attempt to fix things. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

  @Cordless Larry: not to worry - I'm slowly moving them all down to the sfn format, and once that's done I will go through and fix all the deadlink refs. Then I'm pretty much done with my fix ups I think. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Amakuru. I've done the remaining citations from the sport and education sections. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:20, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks Cordless Larry.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Phew, finally finished checking and updating the refs, so I've now finished my list of things to do. @Cordless Larry: do you see anything else that needs doing? Assuming not, my vote is as for DrKay, Close without FARC. I believe with the work we've done, this is now back to FA standard. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The work you've done would be much more accurate, Amakuru. I haven't had time for a thorough read through, but a skim read suggests that all is well. My only concern is with consistency and linking in the sources section. Take the Guardian articles, for instance. Some have London set as the place of publication, some don't, and there are two links to The Guardian, neither of them on the first instance. Cordless Larry (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2015 (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. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

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