Jump to content

Talk:Afrique Victime

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured article candidateAfrique Victime is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Good articleAfrique Victime has been listed as one of the Music good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 8, 2024Good article nomineeNot listed
August 28, 2024Good article nomineeListed
September 12, 2024Peer reviewReviewed
September 13, 2024Featured article candidateNot promoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on October 23, 2024.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Mdou Moctar's 2021 album Afrique Victime was distributed on pre-loaded Nokia 6120 classic cellphones?
Current status: Former featured article candidate, current good article

New article - avenues for expansion

[edit]

I created this article as a stub with basic information to be added on. If you'd like to help expand it, here are some ideas:

  • Chart performance - I've tried, and I don't know where to find this information.
  • Personnel - haven't found a reliable source yet.
  • Album ratings infobox
  • Description of album content and style

Riverhugger (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Afrique Victime/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: PerfectSoundWhatever (talk · contribs) 16:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry User:TheNuggeteer, but this article is a long way from meeting the GA criteria, so I would have to quickfail it. It fails GA criterion #3, due to not being broad in its coverage. Almost all sections are undeveloped, and sources clearly exist to build out these sections. Here are a few points if you still seek to bring this article to GA:

  • There is no information on when/how the album was recorded, and what happened during the writing process.  Done (needs checking)
  • There is no information on any of the songs, how they are structured, how they sound, what instruments they use, what genres they are. Done (needs checking)
  • The rock/blues/assouf part is unsourced (big no-no for genres, see WP:GWAR) and is inexplicably under "track listing"  Done
  • Reception is three sentences despite there being ~10 full length reviews in reputable publications.  Done
  • Personnel list is unsourced  Done
  • Reception should be higher than charts. You can use the ordering of the headers in MOS:ALBUM as a guide.  Done
  • Information about their touring would be useful. As well, a section on the release.  Done (needs checking)
  • The album's title should not be bolded in "Background"; it is already bolded in the lead.  Done
  • Should be more information about the "companion documentary"  Done
  • Why is there a header2 "Afrique Victime" under "Meaning"? No reason to make a subsection when its the only thing in the parent section. Done
  • Discuss themes, political context, etc. in more depth.  Done (needs checking)
  • "Sexism" should not be capitalized Done
  • Other than the metacritic sentence being gramatically poor, "a popular song/album reviewer" is incorrect. Metacritic is a review aggregator, not a review site itself. Also, I think that the ranking was referring to user scores. (I'm not sure we use that)  Done
  • The infobox gives a recording location of "Niamey, Niger", but the prose gives many others. Keep in mind we usually only use allmusic's prose, not database entries.  Done
  • Add accompanying images to help illustrate the text. See Windswept Adan or It Was Hot, We Stayed in the Water for example articles.  Done

Quick spotcheck

from this version.

  • ref 4: only has the rating. all good.  Done
  • ref 9: this is a duplicate ref with [1]. references check out.  Done
  • ref 17: all good. If you use this for prose, (which you should) add the author (Allison Hussey)  Done
  • ref 31: just a chart, all good  Done
  • ref 34: another chart, all good  Done

I would recommend for you to read other album GAs/FAs to get an idea of the level of quality required for these articles. Short album GAs are very rare, because I find that music publications tend to write longer articles, and usually there are interviews to be found. For example, I wrote an album GA on an album with essentially only 3 reviews (Don't Wake Me Up) and I still was able to write out each section into a good paragraph and cover all the broad points. If you are intending to continue improving this article, please feel free to message me on my talk page, as I have decent experience writing album articles. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PerfectSoundWhatever: Do you think an interview by Reverb would fix the recording process problem? I've heard that interviews are sometimes not reliable. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I added it anyway, be free to revert it. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Reverb page should be fine. The Reception section should be above track listing and personnel. The T in the Touring header should be uncapitalized.
Keep in mind: When I said the article lacks information on X, I mean a comprehensive, well-researched paragraph should be included, not a couple of sentences. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 01:45, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:PerfectSoundWhatever, I saw the review here before I saw the article, and I agree with you completely. I'm going to make some MOS edits. BTW I saw them last month here in Birmingham: great show. Drmies (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PerfectSoundWhatever: I want to ask what you mean by WP:ALLMUSIC, and "Keep in mind we usually only use allmusic's prose, not database entries." And I also finished the part about the songs, could you check it out? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You should generally only use AllMusic's prose entries. That means the written text under "AllMusic Review". — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 17:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response, I removed the database parts. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:14, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PerfectSoundWhatever: and @Drmies: Finished with everything, just needs some checks, then I will start another nomination. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies @PerfectSoundWhatever Re-tagging. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:13, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. The paragraph I just removed is full of problems. Besides capitalization and writing, the four quotes are not actually in the article used to verify it, and the audience spoken of here wasn't reacting to the album, but to the band testing out material for the album. Pinging User:PerfectSoundWhatever. Drmies (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just asking, do you think there are more problems? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 13:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The real problem is that you wrote that and stuck it in there. Someone who makes up four quotes, and totally misreads the reference (this is the second time), probably shouldn't be submitting and reviewing for GA. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Drmies; the article is still far from GA. The sections are too short, and the prose/grammar is poor. One example of the former, the reception section should have the reviewers thoughts summarized into 1-2 sentences, not just the score. There are many capitalization errors: "Rock", "Motorcycle gangs", and "War crimes". You should be constantly comparing against passed GAs and FAs and look for the differences in paragraph structure, length, sourcing, and prose quality.

I don't think you have a grasp of what is required for a GA. I'm not sure you should continue attempting to nominate them. Your nominations are 5 fails (incl. 3 quickfails) and 0 passes. There are many other areas you can positively improve the wiki. If you still want to try to nominate them, I would suggest for you to carefully read through all of WP:GACR and Wikipedia:Nominating good articles. Read many other GAs and FAs and get a sense of the quality required. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I requested copyediting by the Guild of Copyeditors to fix the issue with the grammar, as you can see in the talk page, I'm trying to expand the article so every section can be, hopefully, developed. I myself have reviewed an article.
Thanks, 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 06:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I should nominate after I put all the sources? All the problems might land the article on hold (probably), what do you think? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 05:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 05:43, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
Passed. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:18, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Afrique Victime/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: TheNuggeteer (talk · contribs) 09:55, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 22:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review this. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rate Attribute Review Comment
1. Well-written:
1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct. Prose is good.
1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Lead section summarizes the article. Layout is good. Does not contain weasel words or other words to watch.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline. Has a list of references.
2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose). Reliable sources are cited inline.
2c. it contains no original research. Accurately reflects what is in sources about the album.
2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism. No copyright violation; direct quotes are attributed.
3. Broad in its coverage:
3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic. Addresses the album's background, recording, release, promotion, reception, and themes.
3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style). Information is relevant to the album.
4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each. Mentions positive reviews appropriately, and does not embellish or editorialize the album's influence.
5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content. Copyrighted image of album cover has obvious rationale. Other images are free.
6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions. Photos of performances are relevant.
7. Overall assessment. Good.

Quickfail criteria

[edit]

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin A month ago, I remember checking the article for Copyvios, with a 56.7 percentage (from what I can remember), I don't think many major edits were included after that. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 22:51, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First impressions

[edit]
  • A bit too much of "On May 21, 2021, [song X] was released." This is simply redundant as the album was released on that date.
  • Most sources look good, even if some are smaller publications. However, The Fire Note and ThePsychRock.com appear to be blogs, Genius.com and Sonichits are user-generated, and you cite a few record stores which are not editorial publications (Nail City Records, Capsule Records).
  • A few quotes should be attributed, such as the "gateway" description in the lead section.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like The Fire Note and ThePsychRock.com is pretty reliable, will remove the others. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:23, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what makes these sources reliable? I'm not seeing that they're peer reviewed, or have been cited by other sources. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 23:05, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both of these sources are used as opinions, not for information, so these sources do no harm. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:33, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia's guidelines on self-published sources still apply here. WikiProject Albums says: "Professional reviews may include only reviews written by professional journalists or DJs, or found within any online or print publication having a (paid or volunteer) editorial and writing staff (which excludes personal blogs). The standard for inclusion always is that the review meet Wikipedia's guideline for reliable sources and that the source be independent of the artist, record company, etc." — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 15:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will also remove the bandcamp sources, as stated from the previous review, since the date released is no need (except if it's different). 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:25, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

Background

[edit]
  • Mentioning his debut album seems tangential, especially if its source is just a listing of a concert.
  • I don't see a source for the list of his previous albums. This should be removed, as it's tangential to the article, unless the albums are mentioned in the context of Afrique Victime.
  • I would say the subsection "Documentary" seems misplaced; I would expect "Recording process" to come before it. Maybe move "Documentary" to "Release and touring", since it came after the release?
  • Mdou Moctar is the name of the singer as well as his band, but the article at points isn't clear which it's referring to. For example: since Mdou Moctar, as he said in an interview with Reverb, is reluctant to spend too much time cooped up in a studio, they recorded the album in intervals, over a few weeks. (If "they" is the band, then write "the band" to be clear.)
  • There are some other grammatical errors, and style errors such as overusing the word "also". I'll copyedit the article later.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The albums seem important for the context of the switching from Sahel Sounds to Matador, from which the switch is broad enough to mention in the article. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:41, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The way you have written it, it's original synthesis. None of the sources you've cited mention him switching from Sahel Sounds to Matador. However, other sources mention the switch, such as this New York Times article, so you could rewrite it to reflect this. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 15:45, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 08:44, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is better, but I still think Anar is not relevant to the article. There's no real connection between his first album and Afrique Victime. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 16:56, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vigilantcosmicpenguin Is it okay now? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 23:20, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this is good. It looks like there's no original research now, so I just have to do the source spotcheck to confirm this.— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Release and touring

[edit]
  • Lead section uses DMY but this uses MDY. Which one are we using? (Either one could work, since the album was recorded in both the U.S. and Niger.)
  • You cite the announcement of the tour, but it'd be better to use sources from during or after the tour. (It's possible that, say, Mdou Moctar announced tour locations that were later cancelled.)

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vigilantcosmicpenguin Will do later since my location has a power outage. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 00:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can't find a reliable source for the tour. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's okay. I have double-checked whether there are sources and I only see routine reviews. I will accept the Pitchfork source for the statement you have. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 15:43, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tracks

[edit]

Reception

[edit]

Other comments

[edit]

Source spotcheck

[edit]

As of this version

  1. checkY Except the infobox should list the studio as "multiple locations" instead of Niamey. Also, it doesn't mention murder.
  2. checkY Maybe include this source in "Background" instead of the lead?
  3. checkY
  4. checkY
  5. checkY
  6. ☒N Source mentions that some parts are French, but does not specify which parts.
  7. ☒N The source actually says they were all recording together in Niger.
  8. checkY Now that I read the source, it might be better to phrase the sentence without saying it was "described" (just state it as a fact).
  9. checkY But, as I've already mentioned, I don't think this fact is relevant to the article.
  10. checkY But this source also doesn't mention Afrique Victime, so maybe leave it out.
  11. ☒N/checkY Doesn't mention that he made a switch to Matador Records.
  12. checkY
  13. checkY
  14. checkY It doesn't quite say it was his first album of the genre, but you could say it as "Compared to his previous work..."
  15. checkY
  16. ☒N/checkY Doesn't mention the three-note beat.
  17. checkY It says 203 people were killed, not 202.
  18. checkY Except it doesn't mention water.
  19. checkY
  20. ☒N Doesn't mention yards.
  21. checkY
  22. checkY
  23. checkY
  24. checkY
  25. checkY
  26. checkY
  27. checkY
  28. checkY
  29. checkY Could maybe be more specific here, and mention that the political situation prevented them from touring.
  30. checkY
  31. checkY Except you mention "other types of shows", which are not mentioned.
  32. checkY Maybe specify takamba?
  33. no  The Fire Note is not a reliable source.
  34. checkY Although the phrasing "and a climax" isn't very informative. Maybe "slow buildups to a climax"?
  35. checkY
  36. ☒N/checkY The quotes "fluttery sound" and "happy and joyful vibe" do not appear.
  37. checkY
  38. ☒N
  39. checkY Instead of phrasing it as "weddings and certain parts of Niger" maybe just say "weddings and markets in Niger"?
  40. checkY However, I don't think this quote is necessary if it's not in any secondary sources.
  41. checkY Except the exact quote "slinky love song" doesn't appear.
  42. checkY Though it seems out-of-context.
  43. checkY
  44. checkY
  45. checkY
  46. checkY
  47. checkY
  48. checkY
  49. checkY
  50. checkY
  51. checkY Though your phrasing is confusing.
  52. checkY
  53. ☒N The quote is "sandstorm of noise".
  54. checkY
  55. no  If you only have a primary source about this remix, it's not relevant.
  56. checkY
  57. checkY Though the phrase "psychedelic swirl" is meaningless without knowing it's about guitar.
  58. ☒N Mentions guitar, not a guitar solo.
  59. ☒N Doesn't mention the meaning of the title.
  60. checkY
  61. checkY Though it feels like you're singling out Kabeaushé out of all the artists listed.
  62. checkY
  63. checkY
  64. checkY
  65. checkY
  66. checkY
  67. checkY
  68. checkY
  69. checkY
  70. checkY
  71. checkY
  72. no  The Fire Note is not a reliable source.
  73. checkY
  74. no  ThePsychRock is not a reliable source.
  75. checkY
  76. checkY
  77. checkY
  78. checkY
  79. checkY
  80. ☒N Doesn't say the word "intense".
  81. checkY
  82. checkY
  83. ☒N You say "racial discrimination", but this isn't how the source describes it.
  84. checkY
  85. And the rest of the sources are just charts so I'll assume it's accurate.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 04:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I remember that I messed up some of the sources. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will not remove source 10, vital to its' context. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this source is vital to its context. Again, the source does not mention Afrique Victime at all, so it isn't important for an article about Afrique Victime. Instead, I would suggest you cite a similar claim in the guitar.com source. The source mentions that Ilana the Creator was his previous album, before he switched to Matador. The source doesn't mention Sahel Sounds, so if you think that's important to mention, you could cite the New York Times source. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 15:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the quotes for source 36 a bit. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:50, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the phrase "joyful vibe" is encyclopedic. Also, it doesn't make sense to cite Financial Times in parentheses, especially since you're using three different sources for this sentence. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 15:19, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with source 38? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't look like that source mentions the rooster sound or the sound of footsteps. However, you have since rewritten the sentence to mention the "psychedelic" guitar, and the source does back this up, so ok. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 15:17, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Done 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 10:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed everything (probably). 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 04:33, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting and comments on style

[edit]
  • I just took some time to copyedit the article. I have a few comments I think you should keep in mind:
  • Some of my fixes were to simple grammatical errors. Remember that song titles are in quotation marks, and titles of publications are in italics. Common nouns should not be capitalized. Commas should not be used to combine two sentences.
  • A good article is supposed to be concise, and you had some problems with this. The most frequent problem was your overuse of the word "also"—this can almost always be avoided. Also, phrases like "reportedly" should be avoided. In general, you should try to make sentences as brief as possible without losing information.
  • Similarly, you overdid attributions to sources. You only need to attribute a claim to a source if is opinionated or debatable. You shouldn't say something like "According to Source XYZ, the song includes guitar." since no one would debate that. If there's a direct quote, you have to attribute it, but you shouldn't use direct quotes to describe objective facts.
  • Your article was mildly underlinked. You should have linked terms like Nokia 6120, takamba, etc., as readers may not be immediately familiar with them.
  • I also tweaked the lead section. It was already acceptable before, but I think it's clearer as multiple paragraphs, and I mentioned a few more facts from the body. I also included some facts from the lead in the body.
  • Besides these prose issues, the article is good. You've improved it a lot since the first failed GA nomination, and it's now very thorough. You've also inspired me to listen to this album—I had barely heard of Mdou Moctar before this, and it turns out he's really good! :)

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]
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 Hilst talk 11:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Mdou Moctar's Afrique Victime was also released on Nokia devices (specifically the Nokia 6120) to honor his former albums?
Improved to Good Article status by TheNuggeteer (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 19 past nominations.

🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 03:41, 28 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • GA status confirmed, date is fine. Various GA-related quality aspects confirmed as meeting DYK standards. Still needs a QPQ review. Hook needs improvements; not Nokia devices, but a single device (the article states "In homage to his first albums, which he spread using Bluetooth, he released a collector's edition Nokia 6120 handset."). And while this is not a DYK concern, I think this part of the article should be expanded - how can one spread albums using Bluetooth? How does one include an album in a handset (the source states it was pre-loaded onto a classic handset, which is confusing - what exactly was that item)? If I was a GA reviewer I'd expect this to be addressed (expanded with clarifications in the text). Ping GA reviewer User:Vigilantcosmicpenguin.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:02, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finished the hook request. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus: Hello? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus and TheNuggeteer: The first hook was a bit confusing to me. Perhaps something like:

Feel free to strike or revise, Rjjiii (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Afrique_Victime&oldid=1252795957"