Talk:Benin Moat

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Benin Moat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: FuzzyMagma (talk · contribs) 08:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this. Good luck for both of us FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

This is a WP:QUICKFAIL. I'll list some of the many issues below.

General comments

• There is alot of use of MOS:FLOWERY and MOS:WEASEL terms which need to be addressed, also check the article for words to watch. Some examples "this intricate system of", "a testament to the grandeur of", "the powerful Benin Empire", and many many more

Lead

• The article lead Need does not summarise the article and it need to be expanded
• The citation need to be removed and incorporated into the article.
• 2,510 square .. need to be in inside a {{convert}} template
• 2,510 is not included anywhere in the text
• it is not clear if the building still exists or not

History section

• Need expansion to include more details into the history of the building itself, the construction process, partial-destruction (if that occurred), and what exits of it. all of this is not included. This is the crux of the article.
• There is not mention of architecture and design, exterior, or any details about the building itself
• "Historical significance of Benin City" section should be a separate section that outline the symbolism of the structure. The section as it stands is a mix of "symbolism" and "history" which need to be separated
• "Urban core and protective Moats" section is a sudden jump with no clear context. is this the context of where the moat exists? if yes it need to move at the top of this section
• "Endurance amidst modern expansion", this section make sense and will support the whole section when the history of the moat is written properly. The section should be titled "Current state"
• wikilink "Oba" and "Oguola"

The Moat

• "truly monumental dimensions" = MOS:FLOWERY and MOS:WEASEL terms. The main question also is who is saying this?
• "Origins rooted in history" section need expansion and need to be under "Symbolism" section

UNESCO World Heritage Site

• This recognition highlights the historical and cultural significance of the moat in representing the architectural and engineering achievements of the Edo people. this is surely WP:OR
• I stopped here as this is clearly a Quick fail but please also fix the images lay out, Wikipedia is not an image repository.

References

• Pages are needed for the citations from books.

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

   need extensive copy editing. WP:WTW is a recurring issue. See also above about layout and the lead.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

   Not fully evaluated due to WP:QUICKFAIL. But OR was spotted see above and missing book pages

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   No, the article does not even scratch the surface when it comes to coverage.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   Not evaluated due to WP:QUICKFAIL.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have non-free use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   Not evaluated due to WP:QUICKFAIL.

7. Overall: This is far from ready and qualifies for a WP:QUICKFAIL primarily under criteria 1. The article also need further expansion. it is a good start but not a good article.

   Pass/Fail:

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Benin Moat/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Generalissima (talk · contribs) 16:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Good day! I intend to review this article, hopefully over the next few days. Thank you for your effort, especially in a field — precolonial African history — that has been sorely needing more high-quality articles. --Generalissima (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Initial thoughts and read-through

Interesting article, good use of sources and images. Some areas are worded in ways that could be seen as confusing, so I will do my best to offer suggestions on how to correct those. There are also a couple claims which need additional citation and sourcing.

From the top!

Images

• The Benin Moat.jpg
  • Used well, creative commons due to Google Art Project. Checks out.

• Map of the Benin Moat in Rural Areas.jpg
  • This would be a great image, but I'm not sure if it's free use. It is sourced to the blog EdoWorld, but it appears to be a book scan, not from the blog itself (And in any case, there's no indication that it'd be free to use anyhow.) From the text, they appear to be roughly late 1970s, which would put them pretty firmly within copyright no matter the jurisdiction. Please verify the image is Creative Commons, and remove it if not.

• Drawing_of_Benin_City_made_by_an_English_officer_1897
  • Free to use due to age. Gives good context. Checks out.

• Benin_wallsss.jpg
  • Unclear file name aside, good context. Free to use due to age.

• Oba's_compound_during_the_attack_on_Benin_City.jpg
  • Free to use due to age, however it is so blurry I am unsure if it is useful or not.

Article overview

The more I dived into researching on this, the more issues I have found with the information presented. Some causes of concern

1. Benin Iya / Sungbo's Eredo is not itself a UNESCO World Heritage Site. It is a Nigerian submission to the UNESCO tentative list.[1]
   1. @Generalissima: Thank you for looking through the article, so far, you concerns are things that could be sorted out quickly and I can do that. I will comment on this part later. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

       Fixed --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:23, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

2. The article title (Benin Moat) seems like it may not be the most common name for this structure. It is, after all, multiple moats, alongside walls and other earthworks. On the UNESCO tentative list submission, it is listed as Benin Iya, while the term Walls of Benin is used in sources such as the Guardian. [2] A good neutral term might be Benin Iya or, more generally 'Earthworks of Benin'?
   1. The Guardian that you cited probably didn't even get their information from a local source, topics like this IMHO require you to ask from word-of-mouth sources, old books, etc, which is what I have done, but in case of a name change, I lean towards Benin Iya.--Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
3. The term Iyanuwo is unsourced. I could not find significant use of this, unlike with the aforementioned term of Benin Iya.
   1. I got this from here https://www.vanguardngr.com/2011/03/national-monumentbenin-moat-on-the-edge-of-extinction/ this was a comment by a locale also which I most like am going to believe, I quote "That is why the Benins call the earth work Iyanuwo, that is the boundary earth work." --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

   For this, Iyanuwo was mentioned here[3]. But, I using both Iyanuwo and simply Iya wouldn't be a bad idea afterall. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

   Could you cite that news article after you mention Iyanuwo? Generalissima (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

   @Generalissima  Done Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

4. As mentioned above, the map image is not sourced from its original source, and is possibly a copyright violation.
   1. I have formally request permission for that file, so maybe I would remove it temporarily and when I get the permission to use, I can add back --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

   Also, I saw that the original image is actually from a journal publication, and it is located here [4] So I have also requested permission.

   I have now Temporarily  Removed the map image pending permission to reuse. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 09:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

5. Narrative rather than encyclopedic prose in some sections.
   1. Describing it as an "Ancient engineering feat" in lede may border on puffery.
      1. This is something that you and I can simply fix by changing the phrase to something else that is more suitable --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
   2. "The defensive capabilities of the Benin Moat were evident in practice." This seems unnecessary - it glorifies the earthworks abilities without adding additional information.
      1. I simply remove --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

       Fixed Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

6. "One notable vestige of the past is Chief Enogie Aikoriogie's house in Obasagbon, which still exhibits architectural designs reminiscent of the Benin Empire." This could be workable in an article on the architecture of the Benin empire in general, but not on this specific earthwork.
   1. You think this should go out? --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:15, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

    Fixed by removal. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

7. Its description as the Great Walls of Benin within Olfert Dapper's work is not elaborated on within the body, nor cited. This would be an important source to use, as a European source referring to the walls in the precolonial era.
   1. Please clarify --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

   This is the last line of the lede:

   • "It was described by Olfert Dapper in his book Description of Africa in 1668 as the Great Walls of Benin."

   A general practice is that every claim or statement made in the lede has to be expanded on in the body. So if you mentioned Dapper's Description of Africa in the Legacy section, talked about how he described it, and cited the source that mentioned the Walls of Benin in Description of Africa (alongside the original text), this would satisfy the criteria to expand on the lede within the main body, as well as expanding the legacy section.

   It may also be a good idea to find the Dutch phrase Dapper used, and have that presented using the Lang-nl template. --Generalissima (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

   @Generalissima I expanded the legacy section, but is finding the Dutch phrase Dapper used be mandatory? I am not Dutch and I am even still trying to translate the entire chapter in page 495 of his book where he described the Kingdom of Benin in general. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

   Not necessary, it would just be a good thing to add if you found it. Your improvement is good! Generalissima (talk) 17:48, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

   Okay, this is now  Fixed I guess, plus, I am also honestly interested in knowing what Dutch phrase he used, I will keep researching. Thanks for your comment. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

8. Frequent unnecessary use of italics. Refer to MOS:ITALICS.
   1. Will go through and fix now --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

    Fixed Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

9. Within the legacy section, the entire second paragraph seems unnecessary to understanding the legacy of the earthworks - it seems focused on Benin itself. Terminology like "ancient charm" used is also more narratively-focused than encyclopedic.
   1. Will look through now --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:17, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

    Fixed Vanderwaalforces (talk) 07:55, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

If these issues can be addressed in a timely manner, I think that this will fit the criteria for a Good Article. If not, this may need to be renominated at a later date. Nevertheless, thank you very much for your work so far! :3 --Generalissima (talk) 21:51, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Generalissima Where do I comment? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:00, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

You can comment here, or if you want to respond to individual points, just edit your response below any given line and sign it. Generalissima (talk) 22:01, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

@Generalissima Kindly take a look. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:42, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I took one last scan over everything and double-checking sources for any issues of close-paraphrasing, OR, etc. I removed one claim (that sections might still exist undiscovered) which primarily relied on hearsay.Generalissima (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar):
   b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references):
   b (citations to reliable sources):
   c (OR):
   d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects):
   b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
   b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

Overall:
Good job, and thank you so much for your hard work creating & improving this article! I can't overstate how important the creation & improvement of good historical articles are for improving this encyclopedia's relative geographic bias of content. I believe this article fits the GA criteria. :3 - Generalissima (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Vaticidalprophet talk 12:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that the Benin Moat was built by the Edo people over several centuries, starting from around 800 AD and continuing until 1460 AD? Source: EGBON, Ikponmwosa Nathaniel and OSABUOHIEN, Iyegbekosa Progress (2022). First Checklist, Species Richness and Diversity of Leaf-Litter Dwelling Ants (Hymenoptera: Formicidae) in Ancient Benin Moat, Nigeria. Animal Research International 19(3) pp. 4634–4642. ISSN 1597–3115
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: Link to source PDF: https://www.ajol.info/index.php/ari/article/view/239733

Created by Vanderwaalforces (talk) and FuzzyMagma (talk). Nominated by Vanderwaalforces (talk) at 18:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Benin Moat; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

• Recent GA with no indications of copyvio. Hook is quite interesting - I cannot access the exact source used to cite in the article, but a cursory Google Books search indicate that the 800-1460 date is mentioned by several sources. QPQ is not needed for what I believe is the nominator's first DYK. Good to go. Juxlos (talk) 10:28, 18 October 2023 (UTC)