Talk:Mwazulu Diyabanza

Quotes and contentiousness?

I noticed that at the top of the talk page, it was noted that this is a biography of a living person, and that contentious information must be properly sourced. I was wondering if quotes count as "contentious information." Diyabanza, the subject of this article, has said some things that are, in the climates of the places where he has done his actions, inflammatory, but I think that adding quotes about his background/reasoning helps better give the reader a view of who he is as a person and what his aims/goals are. If the quotes are cited and in quotation marks, I think they ought to be allowed on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkling peach (talk • contribs) 00:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sparkling peach: Thank you for editing this page! ☺️ As you say, I agree that quotations, so long as they are properly cited to a reliable source and in quotation marks (such as the ones you added), would provide a good background and reasoning for his actions. --Bangalamania (talk) 19:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Indy beetle (talk · contribs) 08:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Some comments:

• The bolding of the organizations he participates in in the lede is inappropriate—bolding in a biography is usually reserved for alternative common names of the person in question. The lede is also supposed to summarize the body text of the article, and his participation in these organizations should be mentioned there. Ditto for his views on the CFA.
• which aims to reunite the world's indigenous peoples I think "unite" might be more appropriate than "reunite", it's somewhat dubious to broadly claim that indigenous peoples around the world were politically united amongst themselves (many were at times, many weren't) and as groupings they have never all been united with each other.
• His birth date in the infobox is not sourced.
• I see how sources mention his claims of "Congolese" royal ancestry, though I find their vagueness at worst suspect and the very least frustrating. The reference to "Mpangu province" would imply a relation to the Manikongo and the old Kingdom of Kongo (and in this sense it's not strictly "Congolese", the Congo as we know it today did not have one king) which mostly existed in modern-day Angola, not the DRC. The Portuguese did away with the Manikongo entirely in the 1910s and they had no ceremonial role after that. So I find it highly implausible (though not impossible), considering his own age that his grandfather was indeed an active Kongo royal governor, perhaps maybe a nominal governor for the pretenders to the throne. If only we had a name for his grandfather. I suppose this is my own musing, but it makes me concerned.
• The whole "Planned Actions" subsection is devoted to a few things he has said in interviews, seems like a WP:NOTNEWS case and not of any lasting significance.
• Overall it's not a bad article, but it revolves around a handful of incidents at museums. I think more biographical information (such as why he fled the DRC or how he got involved in those activist organisations, any other full time job or where he was educated) would be necessary for this article to be sufficiently broad per GA standards. -Indy beetle (talk) 08:02, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Bangalamania: Progress? -Indy beetle (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Indy beetle: Thanks so much for the feedback, I really appreciate it! I've made some changes, but unfortunately I can't find any more biographical information for Diyabanza or his family. --Bangalamania (talk) 08:23, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

• Please note my first comment on his history of founding certain activist/cultural organizations and WP:LEDE. I reiterate, his role in these organizations needs to be stated in the body of the article. The lede is supposed to summarize the body, thus it should contain information which is not in the body text. -Indy beetle (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

• My apologies, I hope this has now been fixed. --Bangalamania (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Assessment

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):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): 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 and other media, where possible and appropriate.

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

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

This is a well-written article considering the scant source material. Unfortunately, I do not think there is enough for this to be considered sufficiently broad by GA standards. I will fail this GAn on that account, but I do not wish to discourage the nominator and I think if more source material about the subject is published in the future it would certainly be possible to have a more complete article that could qualify as GA. -Indy beetle (talk) 11:50, 17 July 2021 (UTC)