Talk:Haile Selassie/GA2

Failed "good article" nomination

This article has failed its Good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 26, 2024, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:

Pass

2. Verifiable?:

Pass

3. Broad in coverage?:

Pass

4. Neutral point of view?:

Pass

5. Stable?:

Pass

6. Images?:

Pass

The article has seen great improvements by CtasACTs recent commendable work. I thank them for their valiant contributions. I hope the original reviewer can find it in their heart to grant this page the merited title of Good Article.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be renominated. If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to have it reassessed. Thank you for your work so far.— SweaTheSerg (talk) 09:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What parts do i need to improve since it seems it has passed all the 6 metrics under your gracious review so that it can be reassessed. CtasACT (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I understood it, it would be in the hands of the original reviewer (in this case being Generalissima) to reassess it. But this might be mistaken. I can't find any flaws that would discourage it from nomination. SweaTheSerg (talk) 12:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SweaTheSerg: This is not the case; the reviewer of a first GA has no special role in later GAs.

However, this is currently not a full GA review: you have to give your justification on how the article passes each of the 6 criteria, as well as doing a review of sources used in the article to ensure that they match the text used.

Swea, I see this is your first GAN review, so please make sure to review the instructions at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Reviewing and look through other GA reviews of similar articles. Here's some similar GAs and their reviews; this is the kinda depth that we gotta do for these things to make sure they're up to snuff.

I understand a source and prose review can be a really intimidating task for new editors (I know it was for me at first) so feel free to ask for a second opinion (that's a way you can close the review) if you are unsure.

Generalissima (talk) 15:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I seem to have missread or missunderstood an instruction somewhere in the GA page, yet I can't seem to re-find it. To be fair I did write a more thorough review but I scrapped it when understood it as unneccisarry. Stupid, I know. Anyhow I'll take my leave and hope I learned something. SweaTheSerg (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems very interesting, since @SweaTheSerg, seems to have "passed" this article, and agrees to list it as a good article according to this log [1] but in this log here [2] it seems the article "failed" the criteria? This has really confused me since @SweaTheSerg gives a pass to each criteria with a green checkmark sign indicating each crtirea has passed, yet nonetheless gives a failed grade. I think this is an error since according to the green checks filled by @SweaTheSerg the article passes all criteria and thus a pass and not a failed article. And if you still insist in the fact it has "failed" please give appropriate reasons to (why?) it has failed your assessment so that i can FIX and you reassess it. As @Generalissima pointed out, GA dicussions on minor fixs can be done through a process, meaning the GA is on hold till the problems for this case @SweaTheSerg has seen so that the article can be again reassessed rather than wait a few more months to wait in line for it to be reviewed again. So @SweaTheSergSweaTheSerg please do list the problems you've noticed so that they have be addressed rather than shunned, since again [2] shows a section "Failed "good article" nomination" yet instills green checks to ALL the 6 criteria giving it in detail a passing grade. Anyways can you expand on the matter? CtasACT (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your confusion is wholly warranted, and I apologize. But again, it was all a misunderstanding on my side. In my previous review I did try to state it as passing. However, I will do another, thorougher read-through and review - partly to compensate for the lack of content and clarity previously. This revised review will likely need a second opinion by a more experienced editor. I was planning on using a different template, but the ones you provided are superior in clarity, so I will use one of them.

Again, I do apologize, and I hope my reassessment won't take too much extra time. SweaTheSerg (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SweaTheSerg i wanted to check back on the review process since the article is long i do understand why any updates haven't been added, nonetheless i would like to ask even if a little what you have determined or at least thought-out of the article at this stage. CtasACT (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do apologise for the time this takes; I've got other business in life I'm taking care of. At this time I would say that the references seem all well to me, though this is outside my comfort zone (as I understand, the discrepancy that was found there earlier has been resolved), and I request another pair of eyes to gaze upon them. I've found no copyright violations, and I greatly appreciate the heavy use of quotes and other media, the use of Psalm 68:31 as an introduction in that related section, as well as the audio alternative.

Though I do wonder if one could clarify (in the 'coat of arms' section) that the Order of Seraphim is a Swedish order. If this cannot be done without reading as awkward, it should be avoided, of course, but it's a proposal. Otherwise, I could note oddities in the audio version of the article, but I understand that such is not under any of our command.

It will take additional time to finish the review, but I do promise this will not exceed one week. I thank you for your patience. SweaTheSerg (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

1. Though it's probably true; I'd say "Zewditu was far from an honorary ruler" would be a biased representation. It should instead state what Zewditu did to merit this reputation - and/or what contemporary persons saw in her.

2. There's an error in the 1940s and 1950s section. The statement "...more widely spread throughout the empire. " is split between two paragraphs.

3. Again, I belive one could clarify that the Order of Seraphim is a Swedish order in the coat of arms section. SweaTheSerg (talk) 19:33, 15 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay fixed all of that, as my edit log to the page reads "Fixed coat of arms section, fixed the split sentence in two paragraphs, and fixed a Wikipedia:NPOV problem on Zewditu section + Added Scholar Sources following WP:RS" So anymore problems you could see i should fix? CtasACT (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the source for the paragraph "In 1967, he visited Montréal, Canada, to open the Ethiopian Pavilion [...]" is very clear. Furthermore, I think the links in the See Also section could either be alphabetically ordered, or at least have the more relevant links further up.

But that's about it. I'll deliver my full statement within the aforementioned timeframe, though, I warn that I still need someone else to look over the reference material before I can award the article a full score. SweaTheSerg (talk) 22:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SweaTheSerg fixed both of those, added two sources, and fixed the See also via alphabetic order. The reference material I'll try to make someone else join the conversation, within 1-2 days from already in discussion with them, so they can give a verdict on if the references are enough, or need some fixing. Seems productive! CtasACT (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Just one more thing, I just realized that this image in the wollo famine subsection is without a clear source provided (is it the one bellow?) A link to where the data is found should also be placed on the commons page. SweaTheSerg (talk) 08:38, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SweaTheSerg fixed it in commons, added the source, i made the graph partial: based from data which i now have linked to two sources! CtasACT (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CtasACT SweaTheSerg (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SweaTheSerg, might need to wait a bit, but i believe within a span of 5 days we would have a guaranteed reference reviewer whom i have been talking to, a little patience and this article would get the reference check from a third party! I am very grateful for your patience and staying still and vigilant in this review process to this point! CtasACT (talk) 00:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SweaTheSerg, The article references/sources were reviewed by @Векочел, lots of fixs had to be done, but i and @Векочел fixed all that should be fixed, and they have said that the sources now finally satisfy and meet the GA criteria! I now think the Haile Selassie article is ready to be passed by you: as a GA as a third party has thoroughly reviewed it and deemed it now meets the GA standards! CtasACT (talk) 21:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Splendid! Although it's quite a formality at this point I might as well submit the whole statement for the approval:

Is it well written?
A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
The use of short paragraphs makes it easy to read and follow.

B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Is it verifiable with no original research?
This section is the work of @Векочел, who has gracefully overseen and corrected the reference material.

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:
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):
Is it neutral?
It follows the neutral point of view policy, and represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias:
Is it stable?
There are no ongoing edit war or content dispute, the article doesn't drasticly change day-to-day:
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:

B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable and apropiate captions.
All media is applied well. There are a good amount of images, as well as multiple audio and video recordings:
Overall:
Pass or Fail:

Congratulations my friends! I will now start the work of actually giving the article its award. SweaTheSerg (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SweaTheSerg CtasACT (talk) 17:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SweaTheSerg Thank you for your gratitude on my improvements to this article, but to the previous message i left i would like to know if one of the two statements are correct, 1) The article has passed as the green checks marks left in all 6 criteria's has concurred to me, 2) The section tiled of Failed "good article" nomination is true, and if so please do explain to me each part you have seen and felt needs to be improved in detail so that i can fix them to have you reassess it. This is because all confusion in this discussion can be of no point, and we can focus on the parts if any you saw that needs to be fixed, fast. CtasACT (talk) 00:30, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Charles III/GA2 & Talk:Diana, Princess of Wales/GA1 might be good blueprint to this GA2 review to read and then get back to the parts that i need to fix if any, so that we can possibly make this a successful case of making it a possible Good Article! CtasACT (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SweaTheSerg A good example of a review would be Talk:Tupou VI/GA2 where the reasons are explained to which category it passes and why, and what improvements can be made, so i would highly and graciously recommend you view that as an example for your possible decision in this review. CtasACT (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Векочел

CtasACT and SweaTheSerg, I have been asked by MSincccc if I could look at the sourcing of this article. I plan to do so shortly. Векочел (talk) 23:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do so! It doesn't really concern us if it is you in this case (Asked by a fellow Wiki user) or any other user, @SweaTheSerg asked for a third party and you do well fit that, and we would gladly welcome your review and possible advices for this article! CtasACT (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел read my previous message, you are well welcomed to review the references! CtasACT (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are quite a few sections without sources. These are either going to have to be cited or be removed. My inclination is that this article should be failed. However, I'm open to reconsider if some sources can be added. Векочел (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел Thanks for letting me know i will replace all of them, but please cite the source numbers to be exact, There are 365 sources, all are numerically numbered from citation #1 to citation #365, it would help me to delete and replace them faster. But will try to do so! Thanks CtasACT (talk) 01:25, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел I fixed about 6 of the sources, i couldn't find Geo cities, Sewasew & Black past, for Encyclopedia Aethiopica (there's two of them) i removed the blog post one which is at the top of the page, but citation #64 which seems to be an actual Encyclopedia so i kept it. But again for the other citations i will try to remove them if i find them, if you already know where they are it would be appreciated if you removed them. I also added replaceable sources as reliable as Oxford, and National Geographic's, and such. CtasACT (talk) 02:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CtasACT Thanks, I will continue my review shortly. Векочел (talk) 09:56, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

replaced the Geo cities one, and also fixed the Sewasew one, i added more reliable sources, i also added multiple sources to unsourced sections of the article from RS CtasACT (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел CtasACT (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My initial comments, more to come later:

Why should we consider source 10, Major religions ranked by size, to be reliable?
Encyclopedia Aethiopica appears to be a blog post.
Rastafari Coalition doesn't seem like a RS.
A better source than Africa Media Online could probably be used to explain the title Empress Zewditu granted him in 1928.
Solomonic crown heraldry is non-RS.
Unless I'm missing something, Sewasew is another blog.
Why is The Collector, a work of fiction, referenced in this article?
Is there a better source available for the 1936 war with Italy than Black Past?
Geo cities doesn't seem like an RS.

Continued:

I don't think MTL Blog is an RS.
Is it possible to get an English translation for sources 225, 257, 360, 362, and 364 thru 367?
Sources 227 (Eritrean's Martyrs Day) and 229 (Dates in Eritrean History) don't appear to be from a reliable website. You can keep the other sources in that section.
231 is from the Huffington Post, but the article was written by an independent contributor and so a better source is needed.
Don't use Rastafari Coalition as a source.
I think a better source is needed than Mongabay.
Do not use Fox News as a source (see 269 and 334).
It would be preferable to use perhaps reliable news sources for 271 and 272.
Look for more reliable sources than Rastafari speaks, rasta-man-vibration.com, ecadforum.com, and Ethiopian World Federation.
Could an actual source be found for the claim that Bob Marley's song is dedicated to Haile Selassie, rather than using just a description? (See citation 295)
I also do not consider Shashamane, Life Is an Excellent Adventure, Deadline Hollywood, and Contested Histories to be reliable sources.
I would suggest you look for a more reliable source than Anadolu Agency (i.e., not closely affiliated to an authoritarian government). However, this is only a personal suggestion.
I would be careful about relying on The Crown Council of Ethiopia website.

Векочел (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced almost if not all the sources you mentioned, with some expectation for the Huffington Post although it was written by an independent writer i would assume that the independent writer has the requirements to guest post for The Post, the article also is most interviews from high level Ethiopian officials and complied in a news format, and since i could not find any other sources i figured it should stay. And for the English translations i could not find any English ones, but per WP:Verifiability we can cite non-English sources when English sources do not exist. In this article that seems the case. And last point i think the crown council should only be used for Titles or coat of arms of the Emperor, and not be used for anything else, and i think that is what it does in this article so i left it. But the majority of the citations have been removed and replaced by Reliable Sources. CtasACT (talk) 17:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CtasACT, looks good. That's all I have for the source review. Векочел (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Векочел Thank you so much your review does significantly help this article! CtasACT (talk) 21:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]