Talk:Marcel Lihau/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Aircorn (talk · contribs) 18:25, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to discuss any comments I make below. I am always willing to change my mind. AIRcorn (talk) 08:36, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Review

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

Interesting and well written article. A few comments, but shouldn't take much to get up to standard.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Most was great. Didn't really like the flow in the first early life paragraph as it was a bit choppy. The third sentence is a bit jarring too. I think this would be improved with some more info about his very early life between. There must be some reason De Craemer chose him for extra tutoring.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Not sure about the passed the exam with an exceptionally high score part. Can we have the score itself.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

   References of a high quality and all checked support their source. A few French ones that I am assuming good faith on.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Nothing obvious

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Unlikely to have any violations[1]. Checked the most likely.[2] One of my source checks was a little close, but given the simple nature of the sentence not overly concerned (and the others checked were fine).

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   A few minor things brought up in the comments section. But it seems rounded enough to meet this criteria

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Nothing jumps out at me as being written non-nuetrally, which is an accomplishment given the subject.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   Just the one main editor[3]

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   I did not know there was a template for cropping an image. I will be using that from now on if I need it done. Licensing seems fine.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Images all relavent

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments

• Circumventing regular colonial restrictions on education of Congolese, sociologist Willy De Craemer actively prepared Lihau for the Jury Central exam for required for admission into the Université catholique de Louvain. Confusing sentence
• Regardless, Lihau passed the exam with an exceptionally high score and was enrolled in the university to study Roman philology Citation needed, especially for exceptionally high score.
• In reality, he took courses related to law (then not offered to Congolese students) with the help of De Craemer and Jesuit educators. How does "In reality" apply?
• The first paragraph of early life needs a bit of copy editing. Some of the information does not flow well (for example the relevance and position of the For the duration of his studies he stayed with the family of Karel Theunissen, the former director of Léopoldville Radio sentence is awkward.
• Is there more info on family. Parents for instance.
• For a time he lived on campus. Relevance?
• after a political dispute between Kasa-Vubu's government and the commission, This seems important. Are there more details or a less vague way of explaining it.
• My history of DRC/Zaire is poor I am afraid, and this article was good at keeping things relative to the time without going into WP:Undue. However there are maybe a few things that could improve it some more.
  • It goes from Mobutu's first coup where he replaced the parliamentary system with a "College of Commissioners" onto Iléo's breif time in charge. How did this come about? Did Mobutu install him or was he elected?
  • What is a "College of Commissioners"? Can it at least be linked?
• His career ends quite suddenly. What happened to his political conference and how did his goal of democratizing go? I think it just needs some sort of closing sentence.

Source check

• 5 Burke 2001, p. 45 --fine
• 13 Fox 2011, p. 173 -- Getting close to close paraphrasing (i.e Lihau died on 9 April 1999 in Boston, seven days after the death of his wife in Kinshasa). It is a pretty simple sentence though. The rest was fine.
• 2 Fox 2011, p. 164 -- good

Response to @Aircorn:

1. Agreed. I've revised the entire first paragraph.
2. ^
3. ^
4. ^
5. Nothing I've been able to find, unfortunately.
6. I've put that in there just in case. There's not as many biographical details on Lihau as there are for other Congolese so I was just jamming in what I found. I'll leave that up to you to determine whether such info on where he lived matters much. For example, while he was President of the Supreme Court, he lived in a large and lavishly furnished mansion built in 1928 for the Belgian colonial attorney general (designated as his residence by Mobutu, I assume).
7. Revised.
8. This is all part of the confusing mess of the Congo Crisis. On 5 September 1960 President Kasa-Vubu dismissed Prime Minister Lumumba and six of his ministers and ordered Iléo to replace Lumumba. Lumumba did not take to kindly to this and went to parliament, which subsequently voted to invalidate Kasa-Vubu's action. Kasa-Vubu refused to back down, and as a result an impasse was created. Iléo had been unprepared for his appointment to the premiership and had to hastily put together a government (it would appear that he never got around to appointing a secretary general of justice). Both Lumumba and Iléo exercised some control over the fractured government during this time. On 14 September Colonel Mobutu appointed the College of Commissioners (Collège des commissaires) to replace both parliament, Kasa-Vubu/Iléo's government, and Lumumba's government. Lumumba was later arrested and murdered, but Kasa-Vubu was soon allowed to resume his ceremonial privileges as head of state. Due to the unpopularity of the college among the national political parties, Kasa-Vubu's full powers were restored by Mobutu in February 1961. He subsequently renominated Iléo to be prime minister. Some time after then Iléo appointed Lihau to be secretary general of justice. But the Congo further divided over the removal of Lumumba and Iléo never garnered much popularity. He was replaced by a new prime minister that was selected by a reconvened parliament in August.
9. I've given a brief explanation in the article. Basically, it was a selection of college graduates (and some students, such as Lihau) that formed a technocracy (which was, in theory, apolitical) and ran various departments of the government in the place of the deposed ministers. Unfortunately, no Wikipedia article for it currently exists.
10. I haven't really been able to find much on this conference he formed, and it's really the last biographical detail I have before his death. As for democratizing the Congo...well, it's really up for debate as to whether or not the Congo can currently be considered a true "democracy" (thanks to the authoritarian nature of the current president). Mobutu did fall in 1997, though that had more to do with an invasion by a rebel group than any external peaceful reform movements.

-Indy beetle (talk) 01:42, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: First paragraph is much better and his early life is comprehensive enough for a GA. I was wondering whether there was any significance to him he living on campus (i.e. was this unusual). It is a minor quibble and while it doesn't seem terribly important it won't effect the GA status one way or another. The ending to his careers just seemed abrupt to me. There are 12 years from when he founded a political conference till his death. I was hoping there was a way to tie it off a bit better. The source[4] doesn't really give us much to work with though so if there is nothing out there then that is the best we can do. Everything else is fine and despite the above comments I am satisfied that this is a good article. Passing. Congratulations, and I want to add that it is great to see good African articles passing through here. AIRcorn (talk) 07:54, 7 May 2017 (UTC)