Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barthélemy Boganda


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted 00:09, 13 March 2008.

Barthélemy Boganda


I'm nominating this article because it meets the Featured Article criteria. Boganda was a priest turned politician of Oubangui-Chari which became the Central African Republic under his leadership. He's quite an interesting character, so I hope you enjoy reading the article. Thanks in advance for any comments or suggestions. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 20:24, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I enjoyed reading this, but there seem to be several grammatical errors, for example: In the first sentence, the author has written: "... was the leading pre-independence nationalist in Oubangui-Chari, which would posthumously become the Central African Republic under his leadership." As far as my understanding of grammar goes, I always thought that only a person, rather than a country/place/thing, could be awarded anything posthumously. Also, the image of Barthélemy Boganda is copy-righted and unlicensed. Surely a problem for a FA? --Slicedpineapple (talk) 21:25, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * "Posthumous" just means "after death". The official declaration of independence was granted after Boganda's death. The phrasing may seem a bit awkward, so if you have any suggestions, I'm all ears. Also, the image of Boganda was licensed under fair use. Check the image if you want to see the full FU rationale. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:18, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The sentence is in fact awkwardly worded as to make one think that "posthumously" refers to the death of Oubangui-Chari rather than of Boganda. If this were the case, it would be a mistake of diction rather than of grammar. I've rewritten the sentence to make it clear that we are talking about the death of Boganda. --MagneticFlux (talk) 22:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 22:40, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
 * A comment on the picture issue: there is no explicit need for FAs to have at least one uncopyrighted/released image. It is indeed preferred, but sometimes they may just be impossible to come by. I note that there have been FAs who made it to the main page without any free media, and they appeared there without an image. For Boganda, this may not actually be the case: if unable to find another image (and unable we may just be), we could feature the article with an image of the Central African flag, as it was designed by Boganda and is thus closely connected with the article. Just a suggestion. Dahn (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support Superb. I wanted to find a flaw with it, but it was impossible. I'll try harder for the sake of it, but I cannot picture finding something which would in any way make this article less FA-worthy. Great job, Biruitorul and Nishkid. Dahn (talk) 03:24, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps just one small issue: references 11, 15 and 30 expand on some issues, but the sources that could verify them are not specified. Could something be done about this? Dahn (talk) 03:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC) Something was done, and kudos to both editors. Dahn (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have done this for all references. I am not sure where Biruitorul found a quote from the 2004 CAR preamble, so I'll ask him. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 05:23, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. (I was doing it at the same moment as Nishkid, but he beat me to the punch.) Biruitorul (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, and thank you. Two more suggestions concerning the CAR Constitution, both of them minor. I was able to find an online English-version of the 1994 CAR Constitution in word format - it is not the same legal document, but the text about Boganda appears to be identical. The whole thing is available from this database kept by the University of Pretoria Centre for Human Rights, so perhaps you could add the link in the article. My other is that the, whichever doc the link for Constitution leads to, it is probably best if it is not embedded, and has a link to the source and the publishing date etc. Dahn (talk) 05:37, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a constitution. Do we really need to format that with publisher, date and other details? It would seem that an embedded link would suffice in this case. That's my opinion. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 05:46, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I just hate embedded links, and the MOS frowns on them. It's no big deal, but consider how nicely copyedited the rest of the article is. I tend to agree with you on the constitution edition issue, which is why I did not include it among the references that needed a citation. I would go as far as to say that you needn't even have a link to it - the text is bound to be the same in any copy. However, if you opt for a link, I say it's best for the article if it is assigned a publisher and a date. Unreliable sources may republish reliable texts, and we should not be sending readers to them or granting them attention - I'm not saying this is the case here, though I think that a link to Pretoria Uni is better than one to a news site that we know little about. Also, all links may rot. Dahn (talk) 05:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Now you may sleep easier! Biruitorul (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfect. Dahn (talk) 18:22, 8 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support as the author of the bulk of the text, with many thanks to Nishkid, Aldux, Dahn, Ceoil, MagneticFlux and others who have helped raise this to the FA level. I believe it meets the criteria and also makes for an interesting, edifying read on a figure most readers probably will not have heard of but will be glad they did, which was my reaction five months ago when I first read about the man. Biruitorul (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support - ISNA. MOJSKA   666  (msg) 14:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. [Light copy edit] Very well put together, and an interesting read. Ceoil (talk) 14:39, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Support This is a great article and I look forward to more from this team :) Maralia (talk) 02:40, 10 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Comments Sources look good, publishers, pages numbers, etc. all there. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Support - Well sourced, and well written. Meets the criteria. 'External links' section would look better with more than just 1 link. Good job! - KNM Talk 04:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * External links are neither required nor desired. Please see WP:WIAFA and WP:EL.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think KNM was referring to the fact there was only 1 link in the "External links" section. The plural of "link" is used, but there's only 1 EL. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not love) 02:39, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Sorry, if it sounded like an objection. While it is not at all present in FA criteria, at least for me it did not look great having an "External links" section with just 1 link. My support stands, even if that section itself is gone. - KNM Talk 03:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.