Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Afrique Victime/archive1

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

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 13 September 2024 [1].

Afrique Victime

Nominator(s): 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is my first FA nomination, so feel free to point out any mistakes.

I edited this article since July 4 and expanded it thoroughly with all the sources I can find on the internet, amounting to 50 tabs. The article has been fixed by multiple experienced editors and is able to have a FAC nomination. Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging @Drmies: and @Vigilantcosmicpenguin: for whom were involved in the previous GA nomination. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:46, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also going to tag @Wuju Daisuki: since he was involved in the PR. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a woman, but thanks. I won't give a long review, but I think the article looks much better than it did when I peer reviewed it. Good day, Wuju Daisuki (talk) 09:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not experienced with FA nominations, but as the GA nomination reviewer, I would say it hasn't reached FA level. During my review, TheNuggeteer addressed all the concerns I voiced, but did not go beyond that, and it doesn't look like he has made substantial edits since then. I copyedited the article just enough to meet the GA style criteria, but as others are saying, the structure of the article is still quite repetitive, which will have to be fixed. That being said, I think the sourcing is good, and the article thoroughly includes the coverage about the subject. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing this nomination for obvious problems and reasons, thank you for all your suggestions to make this an FA! Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:44, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@FAC coordinators: the nominator would like to withdraw. 750 h+ 07:53, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to FAC, but I think I must oppose on several issues relating to prose quality. There is excessive duplication of subject matter, especially the mentions of historical colonialism and political instability in Nigeria, which are confusingly spread across several sections. The prose itself is clumsy and occasionally contradictory, and contains various quotes from Moctar interspersed oddly throughout the article. The "Reception" section feels unnecessarily short for the detail provided in the sources, and would benefit from being rewritten following the advice at WP:RECEPTION. In summary, I don't feel that several of the FA criteria are met; the article would benefit from a structural rethink, possibly followed by a copyedit from an experienced editor with a focus on concision. Best wishes, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, recommend withdrawal and WP:GAR (or WP:PR).

The lead does not summarise the article
"Its genre is assouf ("desert blues)." where's the other quotation mark
"It was recorded in multiple places, including Niamey, Niger." where else?

This article has received a nice ce from other editors, but I think this requires another PR in order to become an FA. 750 h+ 01:43, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by oppose from Nineteen-Ninety Four guy

At this time the nominator cannot be expected to deliver a Featured Article quality, let alone the "brilliant prose" criterion, when they can't even write grammatically correct sentences in this nomination page. I feel like the nominator should be working on further improving their grammar and writing skills, not making FA (and GA) nominations in vain. I'm sorry if I'm being a wet blanket/douchebag here, but it's necessary, if this article is to become a top-notch page. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that grammar is important for an article, but I'd warn against critiquing that the reviewer "can't even write grammatically correct sentences in this nomination page." Keep in mind that many Wikipedia editors are not native English speakers, and try to clean up grammar without censuring people's errors. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is nessesary to point out, however. Grammar is a key part of the criteria that needs to be correct and consistent, if not copyedited by the reviewer or someone else. TheBritinator (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also

I'm not convinced this should even be a GA (sourcing problems, formatting problems, verbosity, repetition, etc.). This comes after User:AirshipJungleman29's edits, and after few series of edits I made earlier. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been withdrawn, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 10:23, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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