Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza/GA2

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 13:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the article's first GA review, which was closed because the nominator was on a wikibreak at the time the review was opened. Edits have been made to the article in order to address many of the comments in the previous review. Comments here will be focused on issues that I think have remained since the last review. I will carry out spotchecks on newly introduced information, leaving the spotchecks of the previous review as standing for themselves. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Checklist
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria All in all, this article has improved a good deal since I last reviewed it. I'm happy to have seen many of the new additions and clarifications in the prose.
 * 1) Is it well written?
 * A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
 * Prose is almost all good. There are a couple very minor issues with grammar and clarity, but these are easily fixed.
 * B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
 * No issues with the style.
 * 1) Is it verifiable with no original research?
 * A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
 * Referencing is top-notch.
 * B. 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):
 * One case where sources could be moved into a sentence, rather than clustering at the end. But this is a minor issue.
 * C. It contains no original research:
 * No cases of original research or novel interpretation that I can see.
 * D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
 * Earwig only flags direct and properly attributed quotes. I also haven't seen any cases of copyvio in translations from the French language sources.
 * 1) Is it broad in its coverage?
 * A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
 * Updates on her since 2021 should be provided, if the information is available. A lot has changed in the CAR since she was blocked from leaving the country.
 * B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
 * Very focused.
 * 1) Is it neutral?
 * It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
 * No apparent bias or non-neutrality in the prose.
 * 1) Is it stable?
 * It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
 * No reversions have taken place in nearly a year. Only major content additions have been for the GA process.
 * 1) Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?
 * A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
 * I'm still unconvinced about the public domain status of the campaign logo. The justification that "it does not meet the threshold of originality" is dubious.
 * B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
 * All relevant.
 * 1) Overall:
 * Pass or Fail:
 * Thanks so much for all the work you've done on this important subject! My only remaining notes are largely minor ones that are easily fixed, with the only issue preventing a quick-pass being a question of if there's recent information on her that could be added to the article. Ping me once you feel you addressed everything and I'll be happy to give it another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've made all suggested changes except where I've replied above. The big ugly alien  ( talk ) 01:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm more than happy to pass this now. Excellent work on this article, as always! --Grnrchst (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2024 (UTC)