Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza

Sources

The WP:ONUS is on the one making the additions. please cite what is added be it her birthday, birthplace, etc.

Also there was an unexplained removal of her office from this page. She was mayor and that is her office.(Lihaas (talk) 02:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)).

[reply to comments by Candleabracadabra, since retracted (I don't know why, it is a talk page)...and at any rate someone had responded and im replying to that](Said user has refactored MY comments thrice now )([1][2][3]) and that is not his right.)

What did I remve?

Selective and constructive? Who has added the vast majority of content here with sources? I added that, I added her birthplace with sources. The addition that she was born in Ndjamena has NO sources hat has been shown here. I dint remove that she was born in Chad , I instead added it first with sources.

What useful wikilinks are you talking about? Countries names' are not added per WP:OL. Its not about me being lazy, if you want to add "easy" information the WP:ONUS is on you to find a link. You don't order people around to find "easy" links, if you don't want a source then the edit doesn't stay

Don't accuse me, when you can find from history that Ie added the bulk of information to this page!Lihaas (talk) 04:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Per said user's talk page: if you don't want to discuss then you wont get consensus to keep you [unsourced] additions.Lihaas (talk) 05:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 19:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits

• No reason for removal of the may of Bangui bit + WP:OL for country names
• without reason?
• without source?
• remove a source?\
• SOURCE?
• AGAIN unsourced
• Why remove source and the inline citations marking where it is sourced to?(Lihaas (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)).

Infobox

She was mayor of Bangui for however long, that fact is not changed and she was sourced to have been in that role. We don't nit pick what is important...nevertheless the mayor of a capital city is important. We have that for mayors of smaller western cities too.

Also in consistency across articles, the birth place doesn't need the current name as the wikilink provides that. See where Fort Lamy links...that is then OVERLINK.(Lihaas (talk) 06:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)).

Then unlink N'Djamena itself. I tend to repeat a link if it's the first instance of it being said in the article under the later historical name for the sake of reader clarity.

Regarding the Bangui mayoralty, I see no reason for it to be included in the article as she wasn't well known for this 8-month role she had in this post after being appointed to it without a known date or a firm knowledge of her predecessor, let alone links to any of these variables (the office or the predecessor). It's in the prose of the article with the most information we can decidedly say we have available to us (after some considerable research on my part attempting to answer these) and that is enough for the encyclopedic purposes of the article. Were we to have more of this information, I would say fine, put it in. Lacking anything but the title (without an accompanying article) and a rough timeframe of her appointment, I think it becomes CLUTTER. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Well other articles that have births before name changes in city just wikilink to it directly.

Its not about her being well known its the importance of the role, the capital city. That was more than likely why she became president (and the bipartisan support, both then and now). The date or predecessor is irrelevant to the role. Weve got date and the importance of the role, that's enough. The other variables don't even show up, so no question of it being blank. Some offices are multiple and even minor yet on the infobox.

btw- thanks for discussing. See were resolved most things now.Lihaas (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Saying why she was chosen is dangerously close to being speculation. George LeMieux was appointed to fill Mel Martinez's Senate seat because he was Charlie Crist's Chief of Staff and Crist wanted a seat-warmer. We are not going to have a box for "Chief of Staff to the Governor of Florida" with no start date, no predecessor and no successor. What's important, and fully known, is that she is President now. Her past is obviously important, but that's why a whole article exists and not just an infobox. So if we can describe it in prose (which we can pretty much do with almost anything encyclopedic), we should and avoid CLUTTERING or just cramming too much into the infobox. Especially if we're missing so many pieces of information. The faults of having a primarily white and American editor base are well-known across Wikipedia in lending undue weight to, say the Mayor of Somerville but we're not going to solve all of that right here, right now. We're not going to go anywhere with just us anyway so I'm going away from this discussion for now. Therequiembellishere (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

wELL IM not citing that as a reason. ;)

True, and I was using precedence on other ariticles. (but OSE) but frankly even ive thought its too big. guess well make the headstart.

Lead mention should suffice too, and its there.

Resolved

Lihaas (talk) 06:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Grnrchst (talk · contribs) 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

I'll take this on for review! Thanks for improving this for Women in Green's 5th Edit-a-thon! --Grnrchst (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Comments

Early life and education

• There's a full stop after "Fort Lamy, Chad", where there should be a comma.
• Link to French Chad, as it was still a colony during this period.
• Her mother wouldn't have been from the CAR, as at the time it was still a colony known as Ubangi-Shari.
• Link to French Cameroon.
• Le Soir url appears to be dead. Add an archived url ([4]) for easier verification.
• Clarify that Panthéon-Assas University is in France, as it's currently unclear that she ever left the CAR before "she returned".
• Might be worth clarifying that she returned in 1990, per the source, just to better establish the timeline.
• "After entering the business [...]" "The business" here being her company or the industry?
• "She is married to Cyriaque Samba-Panza, a former CAR government official, and she has three children." Did she get married at this time? Currently this detail seems a bit out of place in the wider context of the paragraph.
  • I wasn't able to find any source on when they were married. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Spotcheck: [5] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• You mention that it is 2003 twice in the same sentence. Cut one.
• Link to 2003 Central African Republic coup d'état.
• What were the conference's recommendations and how did she implement them?

• Spotcheck: [5] Cited source doesn't say. :/

• Maybe change the title to "Early life and career", as it talks about much more than just her education.

Mayor of Bangui

• "due to her reputation for neutrality and incorruptibility"

• Spotcheck: [13] Source says she was politically neutral, but I can't find anything about "incorruptibility".

• "following the Central African Republic Civil War." But the war is still ongoing. Maybe saying the Battle of Bangui (2013) would be more accurate?
• Were there any concrete results from her campaign? I know it's probably hard to say, as she was only mayor for half a year.
  • I didn't see anything about this. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• "She was succeeded as mayor by Hyacinthe Wodobodé." Was Wodobodé elected? Might be worth clarifying, given Samba-Panza's earlier comments about elections.

Taking office

• Spotcheck: [18] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [13] Verified.
• "the government had collapsed" Is this referring to the previous government or the government's control over the country?
• Spotcheck: [7] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [16] Verified.

Tenure

• "it was necessary for militants to find occupation" What does this mean?
• Link to political bias
• Prose flip-flops a bit between past and present tense at the end of the first paragraph.
• Spotcheck: [14] I can't seem to find anything about French intervention or her comments on it in La Croix. Is this the right source?
• Spotcheck: [23] Seems like here she's arguing against the collective responsibility of armed groups for the war crimes committed by its members. Might be worth clarifying this.
• Spotcheck: [27] Verified.
• "was ineligible to serve while she was interim president" What? Does this mean she was ineligible to run in the election?
• "It was then postponed several times." Would be worth clarifying the reasons, i.e. the political violence in the capital.
• Spotcheck: [23] Verified, although I think "a second round of elections" would be more accurate than "a new election".

2020 presidential campaign

• Do we know what she was doing between 2016 and 2020?
• Might be worth clarifying how much of the vote she won.
  • I was not able to find the exact statistics in a reliable source. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Nevermind, I found it in a Tweet from a news station written in French. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Any news about Samba-Panza since the election?

Lead and infobox

• "She is the first woman" Shouldn't it be "She was the first woman"?
• Might be worth mentioning what work she was doing as a broker and women's rights activist.
  • I don't want to put too much detail for something she's not notable for. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
• Might be worth mentioning whether her attempts were successful and the political climate when she left office.
  • Not much information about this to add. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   Some issues with clarity. Most of the prose is otherwise good, with only some minor grammatical issues.

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

2. 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:

   Citations should be ensured to be complete, but otherwise all good.

   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):

   Every sentence has an inline citation.

   C. It contains no original research:

   A couple cases where the sources don't appear to verify the text.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Earwig only flags direct and properly-attributed quotations.[5]

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Couple empty patches in the timeline. Not sure if there are sources that can fill these out, but worth a check.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Very focused. All context is necessary.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Includes both praise and criticisms, where they make sense. None of it appears undue.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edits since nomination. Last reversion was over a year ago.

6. 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:

   Two of the photographs are from the United States Department of State, and thus in the public domain. Another was taken by the Voice of America, so is also in the public domain. Campaign logo is tagged as in the public domain, but I'm uncertain about its accuracy.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   All relevant and properly captioned. Alt text should be provided but it's not necessary for GA.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Another nicely written article on a very interesting woman in politics. Good work TBUA! My issues are mainly with clarity, gaps in the timeline and sources that don't appear to verify what's being said. Ping me when you feel you've addressed all my comments and I'll be happy to take another look. --Grnrchst (talk) 16:11, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Status query

Grnrchst, Thebiguglyalien, it's been over a month since the review without any action. I haven't seen any edits on Wikipedia from Thebiguglyalien since November 9. If nothing has happened by the end of the year, I'd suggest closing; hopefully, they'll be back by then and it won't be necessary. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: TBUA is taking a wikibreak, so I don't think these notes will be addressed for the near future. Personally, I'd be happy to keep this open, although maybe it'd be worth closing for now and re-opening if/when TBUA has come back. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Grnrchst, based on TBUA's talk-page post this past weekend, which I see you responded to, I think closing is the route to take. You could always begin a new review once TBUA has addressed the issues you've already raised and renominated the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:39, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

A little late, but I've resolved all listed issues except where I've replied above. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 06:56, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

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.

GA Review

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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Catherine Samba-Panza/GA2. 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)

Notes

• If there is any information available about what the recommendations of the reconciliation conference were and how Samba-Panza implemented them, this would be good to include. I notice this information isn't included in the cited source, but it may be worth checking others to see.
  • Not able to find anything in English of French. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• "after it was devastated by the Central African Republic Civil War." I still think this may be a bit ambiguous, as the CAR civil war is still ongoing. But it's a better wording than the previous iteration.
• Spotcheck: [14] Verified in all cases.
• "she was one of three female heads of state in Africa" Might be worth clarifying that this is at the time (early 2014), although this is only a minor quibble. You could also break this sentence up, so ending one sentence with "become the country's president" and starting a new one with "She was also one of three female heads of state in Africa".
• "Samba-Panza welcomed the intervention by French soldiers in the CAR." Could be rewritten to "Samba-Panza welcomed the French intervention in the CAR." Also, Operation Sangaris should be linked to.
• "She weighed this against crimes committed by some soldiers" Should be clarified that these are French interventionist soldiers she's talking about. Right now it's still a little ambiguous.
• "As Séléka had no ties to Kamoun" Shouldn't this be "As the Séléka..."?
• Very nice work finding this information about the 2016-2020 period.
• Spotcheck: [33] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [33][34][35] Verified, although it may be worth bringing these inline with the specific countries each source is talking about, i.e. cite Jeune Afrique for Liberia, BBC News for Senegal and Africa News for DR Congo.
• Spotcheck: [36] Verified.
• Spotcheck: [39] Verified.
• If you'd rather use a non-Twitter source for the election result, or to supplement it with one, Jean-François Akandji-Kombé posted the full results published by the constitutional court on his website.[6] Personally I'm moving more and more against citing Twitter, as the website is becoming increasingly more difficult to access and verify.
• Spotcheck: [41][42] Hrm. Most of this is ok, but I think "without cause" may need further elaboration. Alwihda Info says she was prevented from leaving the country and her passport confiscated at the airport, without the government giving any explanation. Human Rights Watch says that she was prevented from leaving because of "ongoing judicial investigations" into alleged links between her and the armed groups affiliated with Bozizé's Coalition of Patriots for Change. I think providing more detail here is justified.
  • I tried to reword it a little, it could use another look. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
• Do we know about what has happened with Samba-Panza since she was blocked from leaving the country in 2021?
  • I have not been able to find anything else. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:23, 5 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.

2. 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.[7] I also haven't seen any cases of copyvio in translations from the French language sources.

3. 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.

4. 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.

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   @Thebiguglyalien: 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)

Grnrchst I've made all suggested changes except where I've replied above. Thebiguglyalien (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)

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.