Talk:Maurice Kouandété/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Hi, I am review your article for GA. There are some problems with the article but hopefully I can help you through them. Now that I have read it, I am thinking it is a translation as the wording in many places it odd. I am adding my comments below and may add more later. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• Nope, it's my own work and not a translation. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• The lead is not a summary of the article, as per WP:LEAD.
  • According to the link you provided, "the lead serves... as a short, independent summary of the important aspects of the article's topic." ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:41, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
    • Specifically, the lead is the following (copied from WP:LEAD):
      • The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist.
      • The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources.
      • While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article."

• • • • The article's lead needs to following these criteria. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:32, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
        • I see no problem. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• "albeit briefly" - better to say was brieftly president
  • Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~
• "When not involved in coups, Kouandété was chief of staff" - need to mention that he was involved in coups before making a statement like this.
  • Done. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Kouandété attempted to usurp to power again" - when was the first time?
  • Clarified. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• "KJim Hoagland of The Washington Post described Kouandété as a "moody, brilliant and highly ambitious soldier. " - seems like this sentence is in the wrong place - out of chronological sequence.
  • Rearranged. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:20, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• "He began to dislike superior officers like Colonels Christophe Soglo and Alphonse Alley," - why?
  • Rebel is probably a better word. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• "seized the presidency, though he was unsure what to do with it" - could you be more explicit? He did not know how to wield power? What about being president did he not know? Why did he become president if he did not have goals?
  • Did not know how to wield it. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:24, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
• "though the general public's opinion on this matter was different than his supporters" - meaning they did not like him or what?
  • He wasn't that popular. Clarified. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:18, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Meanwhile, France refused to aid Dahomey and would not recognise Kouandété.[5] two days later, who Kouandété previously put under house arrest.[6] Kouandété served as prime minister thereafter" - this does not make sense
  • Oops, it seems I accidentally removed an important part of the paragraph. Hopefully my (re-)additions have clarified this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 03:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Alley eventually became little more than Kouandété's mouthpiece." - wasn't he just a colonel anyway?
  • See above. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 03:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Kouandété forced Alley to resign" - resign from what?
  • Ibid. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 03:05, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "On July 17, 1968, Kouandété forced Alley to resign and handed power to Dr. Emile Derlin Zinsou.[8] It was mainly to improve relations with the French, as Zinsou was popular amongst them.[9] Zinsou was not expected as the one for the job, as he believed that Kouandété's coup was an illegal matter." these sentences need to be clearer and grammatically correct.
  • Changed to "On July 17, 1968, Kouandété forced Alley to resign and handed power to Dr. Emile Derlin Zinsou.[9] This transition of power was enacted mostly to improve relations with the French, as Zinsou was popular among them.[10] Zinsou was not expected to be chosen president, as he believed that Kouandété's coup was an illegal matter". ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 03:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "In 1969, Kouandété discovered that Zinsou planned to replace him and cut the size of the armed forces." - how can this be as you have just said Kouandété forced Alley to resign.
  • Huh? Zinsou is the president, and he tried to get rid of Kouandete. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 03:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "A 12 member military commission discovered another plot, to be undertaken simultaneous to Kouandété's.[19] Captains Glele and Pierre Boni were to follow Kouandété until de Souza was assassinated, then eradicate their leader and insert Zinsou into power" - this needs clarification.
  • Clarified. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 03:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Kouandété, Glele, Boni, 17 other military personnel, several commoners, and even Maga bodyguards received the death penalty for their role in the attack[22] at a military trial on May 12.[23] Kouandete was immediately pardoned when Major Mathieu Kérékou seized power on October 26, 1972" - what year was the death penalty given? If it was on May 12, 1974, then why was he still allive in October, as often death penalites in such situations are carried out immediately.
  • I expanded on the trial, etc. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 02:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
• http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?_r=2&res=F60B17FA3F5A157493C5AB1788D85F448785F9 - what year was this article originally published?

—Mattisse (Talk) 18:38, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

• • 1970. Why? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• This article has been put on hold. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment

• Lead:

• So he led two bloodless coups one against his colonel, Soglo and the other against?
  • The other against what? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Are the names of the schools he went to as a child so important that they should be given weight with the information on coups and other information about him in the lead?
  • Removed. I guess not. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:23, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Remember also, the lead should be able to stand alone in a summary article. A person reading the lead gets the full (if briefer) picture. When was he president and for how long?

• Expanded the lead a bit. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 00:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

• In the body of the article, you must give the full information. For example, when Soglo is mentioned again you must give his full name, title etc. The body is supposed to contain more information that the lead, not less.

—Mattisse (Talk) 03:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

• • Yeah but Soglo is a pretty large figure in Kouandete's life so i don't think we should repeat his name all the time. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• Can you get a copy editor to help you out? The prose is hard to understand and the article does not seem complete. You mention names but do not say who they are. The articles provides little context for many of the people and events mentioned.
  • Sure - I'll send in Dabomb87. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• Examples:

• "When not involved in coups, Kouandété was chief of staff" - this makes it sound like all he did was engage in coups when he wasn't chief of staff - makes the situation sound frivolous.
  • Rewrote. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• "He began to rebel against superior officers like Colonels Christophe Soglo and Alphonse Alley, along with the Fon hierarchy." - poor prose
  • Rewritten. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• fon needs disambig + some context as to who the Fon hierarchy was - what what the hierarchy's role
  • Hopefully clarified this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• "Kouandété seized the presidency, though he was unsure how to wield it." - a presidency is not wielded.
• "Members of his faction urged the new president to remain at his post, though the general public's opinion on this matter was different than his supporters." - does this mean that the general public did not want him as president?
• the section "1967 coup d'état" is hard to follow

• "Meanwhile, France refused to aid Dahomey and would not recognise Kouandété" - why should France aid Dahonmey? - you have not explained any connection
• "Alley eventually became little more than Kouandété's mouthpiece." - how does he come into the picture at this point?
• "This time, Maga was not disallowed from campaigning in this election" - how does he come into the picture and who is he?
  • Clarified. I took a large portion of this directly from Hubert Maga, hence the ambiguity. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

—Mattisse (Talk) 16:54, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• "When not involved in coups, Kouandété was chief of staff of Dahomey's 1,500-man army" - I still object to this sentence in the lead. It makes it sound like his whole life was composed of either being in coups or being chief of staff and nothing more.
• Reworked that. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 01:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
• You need some information about his personal life. It may be that there just is not enough information available on this individual to make a good article.

—Mattisse (Talk) 21:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments

• I recognize that you have worked hard to address this article's issues. I think you have done the best that can be done with the information you have. The problem remains that there is not enough context presented for the general reader to understand the politics of the situation, why the country's politicians use coups to attain political power, who the various contenders were and who they represented (besides the "north" and "south"), and therefore how the subject of this article fits into the general history. This all goes to of comprehensiveness in this article. The article as it stands, is about a series of coups, and not a biography of Maurice Kouandété. Therefore, regretfully, I must fail this article.

Final GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): Well written b (MoS): Follows MoS

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): Well referenced b (citations to reliable sources): Sources are reliable c (OR): No OR

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): Not enough background of the political history of the country is given to understand the dynamics of the coups described in the article. Not enough context and and breadth of information is supplied on the subjects life for this article to stand as a biography. b (focused): Remains focused on subject

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias: NPOV

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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

You have greatly improved this article. Perhaps you will either eventually be able to obtain more information on Maurice Kouandété, as he sounds like a very interesting man, or obtain more information regarding the coups and reframe the article around the coups rather than the man. If you do not agree with this assessment, please consider a reassessment of the article at Good article review. —Mattisse (Talk) 16:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)