Talk:Muslim–Muslim ticket/GA1: Difference between revisions

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

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 21:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take this review. It will be used for both the

1. Is it well written?

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

   B. It complies with the

   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

   :

   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):

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

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

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

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

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing

   edit war

   or content dispute:

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   B. Images are

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• There is significant uncited material within the article, which I have tagged appropriately.

   Working I have started working on this and will continue working on it as we go. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Done I fixed all {{cn}}s and added more citations as well. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Per
  MOS:OVERSECTION
  , there is no need for the multiple subsections within the "Key elections" section.
  • This section is titled "key elections", but in reality it appears to be a list of "all elections". In particular, the 2003–2019 elections neither featured a Muslim-Muslim ticket nor saw a shift towards or away from one.

   Done I used elections which featured the Muslim-Muslim ticket on this section now. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There is extensive duplicated material within the article. I do not understand the purpose of the "overview" section—if it is summarising the article, why isn't it the lead section (
  WP:LEAD
  )?

   Done I ended up merging the Overview into the lead, which the lead technically represents. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of the short paragraphs could be merged together, so the article does not read so disjointed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Done I also worked in this regard across the article. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I have copyedited the lead section to reduce verbosity.
• Try to include specific pages for journal articles, for
  WP:V
  .
• "One of the earliest instances of the Muslim–Muslim ticket was [a Muslim and a Christian] ... While not a strictly Muslim–Muslim ticket..." this part is extremely confusing. I would clarify how a Muslim-Christian ticket is a Muslim-Muslim ticket.
• "is one of the most iconic in Nigeria's history" is this necessary?
• Why does the "key elections" section duplicate the "historical background" section? Why not just have one "History" section?
• This article likes to say the same thing many, many times. How many times do you need to say "The Muslim–Muslim ticket threatens religious balance and it has received attention?" There are honestly too many examples of duplication to count, and I don't want this to turn into a
  WP:FIXLOOP
  , so I'll outline a few examples and leave you to fix the rest, because as it stands the article does not meet GA criterion 1a).
  • "The use of the Muslim–Muslim ticket has also drawn international attention and perspectives. International observers and diplomats have expressed concerns about its potential impact on Nigeria's stability and reputation. The European Union, in a statement during the 2019 election, emphasised the importance of credible and inclusive elections in Nigeria." takes three sentences to explain what should have been done in one.
  • "The adoption of Muslim–Muslim tickets has occasionally led to legal challenges and electoral disputes. Candidates and parties contesting the legitimacy of election outcomes based on religious and regional considerations have resulted in extended legal battles. The 2007 presidential election, which faced legal challenges, serves as a prime example." Again, three sentences to discuss what could have been summarized in one.
  • "Traditional and religious leaders have also weighed in on the controversies surrounding these tickets. Their influence in Nigerian society can shape public opinion and impact electoral outcomes. In 2007, prominent Islamic leaders called for unity and peaceful coexistence during the elections." The second sentence is completely unnecessary, and the first is mostly unnecessary.
  • "Media outlets often provide a platform for public figures and analysts to express their views." you really don't need to explain what the media is.
• In addition, there is a good chance the article contains severe
  WP:RECENTISM
  : the "Recent developments" section is 21kb and only talks about events since 2022; the rest of the article is 23.5kb and covers everything else.
• There are no images in the article; I'm sure you could add a couple on some of the figures discussed, or a map of the Muslim-Christian division, or of just Nigeria in general.
• I'll address the source spot-check once the rest of the fixes above are done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @AirshipJungleman29 Thanks for your feedback. I have tried to address the issues. I don't perceive any NPOV issue though but, what do you think I should do with the recent development section? remove entirely? based on RECENTISM?

  Images, surely, I can find something from Commons. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I'm saying that it should be

  weighted appropriately with the rest of the article. We do not need paragraphs that unnecessarily duplicate each other in attempts to emphasise certain points. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Okay, I will go through that section in that regard now and see how I can work things out. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I trimmed it to focus, have a look. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I have merged the duplicated contents with the rest of the article. Please continue actioning the above comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Please point me to the next comment to work on, looks like I addressed all? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. See e.g. comments on "key elections" vs "historical background" or on general duplication. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   @AirshipJungleman29 Hi today, I have merged both sections, and duplication is no longer an issue if I looked correctly. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks

• 10 citations checked, all good.

After significant work, this article is now a good article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]