Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Battle of N'Djamena (2008)/1

Battle of N'Djamena (2008) edit

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review

Result: Delist per comments below, recommending a careful check of all references for deadlinks, accuracy and close paraphrasing before renomination. Geometry guy 23:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed 10% of the article's content due to copyright violations by User:De Administrando Imperio. To continue as a GA, I would expect the article would need to have the substance of that content restored without the plagiarism and copyvios. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming [1] is an ok source (I saw it mentioned as such in a wp:rs talk archive), I'll clear up some of the confusion from Feb 2008 sources, regarding where JEM was, Deby's tanks, and Massaguet. I've already reformulated the copy/pasted material. Narayanese (talk) 16:10, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers, take your time and if you let me know when you're done I'll come back and give it a look as soon as I can.--Mkativerata (talk) 18:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Several fixes have now been made. Are there outstanding issues with respect to the GA criteria (in particular, broadness 3a), or can this reassessment now be closed? Geometry guy 22:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the absence of responses, I have read through the article myself, and find that it does not meet the GA criteria, failing 1b (lead) and 4 (NPOV). In my cursory reading, I also spotted uncited material and possible copyvios which may be indicative of a broader problem. ~~In the absence of further response, I will delist the article in 3 days~~. Geometry guy 00:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You could be more detailed in your criticism, otherwise I don't know what to fix. Is it France again? Or the lack of focus on Sudan? Something else? The copyvios are only indicate of the style of one of the article's several major editors. And don't expect too much on weekdays. Narayanese (talk) 16:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not providing more details, and good luck improving the article. The lead is already much better. My NPOV concerns were not specific, but there were two issues. First, in an NPOV article, it should not be possible to detect the point of view of the editors, whereas I felt a slightly pro-government view on reading the text (as an ignoramus with no opinion about the conflict). Secondly, all contentious viewpoints should be attributed so that the editorial voice does not support any particular view. For example, you fixed "there are suspicions that the actual number is higher" with "The Human Rights Watch suspects that the actual number is higher". If you can check such issues throughout the article, then there is a good chance that this reassessment can be closed as "keep". Geometry guy 00:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks. I'm not seeing the pro-government bias, I thought its desperate stance would shine through. Its defeat at Massaguet could be made clearer though, and the article is rather uncritical of the UN. It was suggested I add something pro-rebel to the reaction section, but the most I've seen is Sudan saying it's too afraid of France to help out. Regarding attribution: the two sources with the most daring statements ([2][3]) are the ones that (at the surface at the very least) appear the most scholarly, so I'm hesitant to put some 'according to' at them. Narayanese (talk) 05:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is it now? Narayanese (talk) 00:25, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have done a lot of good work. I will read the article more carefully in the next few days. Geometry guy 02:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry that it took longer to get back to the article than I expected. I had hoped to go through the article making small copyedits and fixes before closing this reassessment, but instead I found more cases of close paraphrasing and other issues. I fixed the first two examples:
- Source: "Rebels in Chad say they have seized a strategically important town in the central region of Batha, about 400km (248 miles) from the capital, Ndjamena"
- Article: "On January 30, 2008 rebels seized Oum Hadjer, a strategically important town in the central region of Batha, about 400 km (250 mi) from the N'Djamena."
- Source: "Army patrols have reportedly been increased in N'Djamena in case the rebels try to move on the capital."
- Article: "Army patrols were subsequently increased in N'Djamena in case the rebels tried to move on the capital"
The very next paragraph has:
- Source: "Amid the increasing tensions, France has sent a combat unit of 126 extra troops into Chad, joining 1,100 already situated there."
- Article: "Amid increasing tensions, France sent a combat unit of 126 extra troops into Chad, joining 1,100 already stationed there."

At this point, it became clear that the article still needs to be thoroughly checked. However, my attempts to do so were thwarted by deadlinks, such as 2,6,8,20,24,26,27,28,29,57,64 and 65. It is not the job of review processes to correct or point out every single problem: instead articles should be presented for review in good shape. Plenty of time has been given here to check these issues. I am therefore delisting the article, and recommend that every reference be checked for deadlinks, accuracy and close paraphrasing before it is renominated at GAN. Geometry guy 23:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]