Talk:Oda Gasinzigwa/GA1

GA Review

Passed. asilvering (talk) 23:13, 2 March 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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: asilvering (talk · contribs) 18:51, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering Thanks for picking her up. I appreciate the opportunity to improve the article through our collaboration. Hopefully the live links work. Otherwise, you'll probably have to access the ProQuest or Gale links through the WPLibrary because the archive links are screwed up (See the note on the talk page.) SusunW (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just asked a question about this but then remembered this earlier comment. In that case it's fine. How do you want to handle the outstanding prose comments? Obviously, none of them are GA-level dealbreakers, so I'm happy to promote it now, but if you wanted to leave the review open until you've responded to them that's also of course fine. The most important one (I think) is #8, since that does effect the lead. -- asilvering (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

asilvering, sorry been struggling with allergies. It's that time of year in the tropics. Give me a few hours and I can address the remaining comments. SusunW (talk) 19:09, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SusunW no rush! Sorry about the allergies. -- asilvering (talk) 19:16, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

It is reasonably well written.
a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (reference section): b (inline citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.:
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):
Overall:
Pass/Fail:

Hi! I'll start this off with some top-level stuff before getting into source checking.

Prose/MOS

Right now the lead is almost 400 words - more than 1/4 the size of the rest of the article. Given the size of the article and the fact that she doesn't have a really diverse biography (you're not trying to describe her posthumous reputation, multiple careers, etc), ideally I think it should be about half this size. A single paragraph, if you want to keep it chronological, or two short ones, if you want a "present overview" paragraph first followed by an "important moments in her history" kind of thing. Statements like worked on legislation to give the organisation administrative and financial autonomy, improve security and peaceful relations in the region, and synchronise trade agreements about her general effects and interests can probably be condensed into a single sentence or two and left for the body to fill out. -- asilvering (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trimmed to 262 words. Enough of a crop? SusunW (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it another trim and I think it's good to go now. Feel free to object to or revert any of those changes. -- asilvering (talk) 01:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For the redlinks, is it reasonable to make redirects for any of these? eg National Women's Council (Rwanda)? At this point I haven't read any of the sources, so I'm not sure what might be helpful. -- asilvering (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's lots of information available about the National Women's Council and it should probably have its own article. From what I can tell, it's a pretty important organization for women's development in the country. It was created to bridge the gaps between women in 1996 and to educate them about political processes to prepare them for participation in the constitutional drafting and electoral process after the genocide. (When I was writing Fatuma Ndangiza I found a lot of sources about it.) If you think it necessary both the Ministry for Environment and Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion could be piped to Cabinet of Rwanda, but that seems rather redundant since the cabinet is already linked in its own right in the article. Am happy to link anything that you think will be helpful to the reader. (In general, writing this series of articles on African women has definitely confirmed how dismal our coverage on Africa is.) SusunW (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW I was afraid that would be the case... I'll see if I come up with any ideas when I go through the sources. -- asilvering (talk) 02:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the Early Life section, there's a brief background on Tutsi refugees that strongly implies that Gasinzigwa is from a Tutsi family. But it doesn't outright state that this is the case. So far I've just read her autobio in Gender and Learning in Rwanda, where she doesn't state it directly either, so I'm a bit concerned that the article implies it too strongly. If we don't have any reason to imply that her parents left Rwanda specifically because they were Tutsi, we should probably tone that down a bit. Leaving just the last sentence might work. Or something like "When the Rwandan Patriotic Front ended the genocide of the Tutsi in 1994 and started rebuilding the country, Gasinzigwa and her family returned." That's borrowing Gasinzigwa's wording from her autobio. -- asilvering (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I specifically didn't mention an ethnicity because the sources are vague. I don't think I implied that she was Tutsi, even though it seems likely that she was. (She was elected to the EALA as a representative of the RPF.) That said, your reading is that it is implied. I'll think on this a bit, because to my mind, if one doesn't know what the political situation was at the time, it's impossible to understand why her family were refugees. How do we give the context without an implication is the rub. SusunW (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps I move the context to a Note? SusunW (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I tried moving it to the next section, since it's directly related to the job she received upon returning. I think this gives enough context for someone to learn more through wikilinks if they want to, while retaining the most relevant part to her career (ie, that she has a job in this new government). I tried a few ways to mention the genocide in that sentence and didn't like any of them, but didn't want to leave it out, so I altered a later sentence to mention genocide more prominently. Do you think this works? Please do feel free to edit it some more, or to outright revert it if you hate it. -- asilvering (talk) 23:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  I think it's fine. Thanks. SusunW (talk) 15:04, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
After graduating from primary and secondary school - is this necessary? I don't really see why, since it's immediately followed by her BA. -- asilvering (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleted. SusunW (talk) 14:29, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we not have an article for Mzumbe?! We have articles on every random place that's had a population of like 10 people for a few years... Maybe instead of "in Mzumbe" we should have "near Morogoro"? It is mentioned on that article. -- asilvering (talk) 01:58, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that there is a university there, so we should have an article, which will need incoming links when one is created. For those reasons, I think the redlink should stand. SusunW (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
she was elected to serve as the secretary of the local branch of the National Women's Council - I'm a bit confused by this one. I'm not sure what "local branch" is supposed to mean. The article linked as a source says she was a "secretary at the Cell level". That, I can at least look up (eg [1], looks like it's basically equivalent to an American county or Canadian township?). But it doesn't look to me like "secretary at the Cell level" is equivalent to "secretary of the local branch". I'm not really sure what it might mean, since the website I just linked only has "executive secretariat". Do you have any idea? If you're just getting this from the Umutesi source, I think we have to go with "secretary at the Cell level", since that's their exact wording, so it's presumably correct. -- asilvering (talk) 02:20, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. Took me a bit because I used your link to expand Politics of Rwanda#Decentralization system which I'll link it to. I know now that you have provided this background that the National Women's Council follows this administrative outline for appointing its representatives, so I've changed it to cell and linked to the above section of the politics article. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about moving the information you added there, That same year ... when the first post-genocide elections occurred.? The end of the previous sentence is about resettlement, and so is the beginning of the following sentence, so it seems a bit out of place. imo it would make sense to bring it out of chronological order and place it in the next paragraph instead, so you have a first paragraph that's about reconstruction, and the second about advocacy for women. -- asilvering (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've worked it around a bit. Better? SusunW (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great! -- asilvering (talk) 18:46, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similarly for the last paragraph in this subsection, I think She was one of the speakers ... to give women more opportunities and prevent unemployment., which is all about being speakers at various events, is interrupting a paragraph more directly related to her work as Minister. What do you think about moving the bits about speaking engagements to a new paragraph? I think it would need a topic sentence or half-sentence introducing the idea "Gasinzigwa has travelled around the world to speak on Rwanda's efforts to integrate women into leadership". -- asilvering (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved it to a new paragraph. SusunW (talk) 21:06, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, is there something important about Other speakers included the Pakistani women's rights activist Khalida Brohi and Christine Lagarde, director of the International Monetary Fund. that I'm missing? It looks to me a lot like how COI writers try to inflate their own importance by referring to more famous people they've stood near, which is obviously not your intent. If there isn't anything particularly important about it, maybe we just remove it? -- asilvering (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I never, ever would have looked at it that way. The problem to my mind is that media/academics often write women's biographies without including any of the people that they interacted with or worked with in the great man model. Doing this project of trying to chain each article I am writing this year to a red link in the previous article has definitely shown that trend is still very much alive. IMO, absolutely no one accomplishes anything without the help and assistance of all those people who taught them, who they interacted with, and who they chose as role models or anti-models. I've taken out Brohi and Lagarde based on your assessment, but to my eye, it now makes it seem like she was the only speaker worth mentioning, which I am not certain is better. SusunW (talk) 21:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@SusunW I'm happy to accept your reasoning for this, if you want to add it back! -- asilvering (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed in the footnote on the Beijing Declaration that The culture of bank savings by women has also increased from 29 per cent in 2008 to 47 per cent in 2012. Could be an interesting thing to add to the second paragraph of this subsection, since it's during this period that Gasinzigwa was working on this kind of thing? -- asilvering (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Done SusunW (talk) 21:34, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the politics section, I see that the throughline here is that she wants better integration between the EALA and its member nations. I think it would be very helpful to highlight this a bit more clearly. Right now it's a bit more "she did this, then this, then this" rather than "she prioritized this, and here is some evidence of that". This then could be clarified a bit in the lead. -- asilvering (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing that mentions her speaks of any specific legislation that passed because of her support. Likewise, while I can find information on various bills that were considered during her tenure, I find nothing that ties her to any of the legislation. For the most part, the primary source for any actual legislative action is the EALA itself, not independent coverage. I've rearranged it a bit, but I don't think the sources we have allow us to state what the EALA actually accomplished during her tenure and the extent of her participation. Happy to revisit this or discuss it further. SusunW (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Images

It would be great to get a couple images into the body to break up some of the wall-of-text effect. I assume pictures of Gasinzigwa herself are hard to come by, but what about things associated with her in the bio, like the University of Rwanda or something like that? -- asilvering (talk) 19:10, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I admit that I know little about photographs on living people, or CC by whatever. You will note that there is another photo of her on commons, but per my rationale here, I don't think we can use it. I searched for images of places she is associated with and honestly, I am not particularly enamored of any of them, i.e. Mzumbe University, National Bank of Commerce, Tanzania, Kigali Institute of Education (one appears to be a rock in some dirt? and the other is unidentifiable to me from the original source, which appears to be a series of photos about installing toilets at various schools and labels this one as "Institute area", which for the life of me, I cannot confirm is the Kigali Institute - just trying to type this answer about the sorry photos is making me laugh out loud. I also note that she attended the Kigali Institute which is now part of the University of Rwanda, but wasn't when she went there.) The only photo for the East African Legislative Assembly is from 2010, not when she was in office. I searched on flickr, but again not my specialty. I find nothing with "no known restrictions". Had it not been for the magic that GRuban has, I wouldn't have even the one photo we do have. Perhaps he can use his wands to uncover something else? SusunW (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ohhh wow you weren't kidding. (the toilet one!!) Well, I'm satisfied with "I tried". -- asilvering (talk) 02:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In my brain, I was thinking, these are crappy and then it was literal. SusunW (talk) 14:06, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Something very weird is going on with Karuhanga 2021b. The internet archive link works, and sends me to an article with the correct headline. But the article content isn't about that headline at all. Any idea what's going on here? -- asilvering (talk) 18:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I asked for an update from wayback. They're still working on the problem. SusunW (talk) 21:02, 29 February 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.