Select Page

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rwanda/archive2

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 by GrahamColm 17:04, 6 April 2012 [1].

Rwanda

Rwanda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s):  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article. The last nomination, in June 2011, failed due to lack of consensus and a few actionable objections. Since the start of the last FAC I have addressed these issues raised:

  • Fixed formatting issues in the links
  • Removed or clarified dubiously licensed media
  • Reduced the length of the lead
  • Reduced the length of the history section and also reduced the perceived overweight on the 1990-present period
  • Modified the text in the lead and demographics concerning Hutu/Tutsi/Twa, to try to clarify the categorisation  — Amakuru (talk) 10:37, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Well done in bringing this article back to FAC. Can I just briefly comment on a couple of details in the infobox? You include two items: "Gini (2003) 41.1 (medium)" and "HDI (2011) 0.429 (166th)". Neither of these measures are mentioned in the text and the first is not cited anywhere. In my view, if these are important measures they should be introduced and explained in the text, otherwise they should be omitted. And if included the sources must be cited. The present links from the infobox on Gini and HDI are of little use, as they go to articles which in my view very few readers will want to take time to read and understand. Brianboulton (talk) 18:20, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I just spot-checked several articles on other developing countries, and Gini and HDI are included in the infobox on all of them. These measures are also not discussed in the body of the article in the examples I looked at. They're very important measures and anyone who's involved in international development knows what they are. Your statement that the average reader may not be interested enough to find out what they mean could be applied to probably 99% of the information on Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean we take it out. It should be available in the case that people wish to educate themselves. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but if as you say these are "very important measures", why are they not discussed in the text? Please remember that this is a general encyclopedia article, not something written just for those involved in international development. You cannot simply disregard the bulk of the encyclopedia's readers. Brianboulton (talk) 10:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody's talking about disregarding the bulk of the readers. This seems to be a question of precedent. Like I said, I haven't seen the Gini or HDI routinely discussed in other articles on developing countries, and I don't really know what more can be said in the body of the article without either simply repeating the number or going into an explanation of what these indices mean (which is what the linking is for). Many of the points contained in the text box are not discussed in the text. It's meant to be a brief collection of important information where elaboration is more or less unnecessary. Calling code number, what side people drive on etc. What would you want to see in the body of the article related to the HDI or Gini beyond simply restating the figures, and without providing an inevitably lengthy definition of the indices? Lemurbaby (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would expect to see a brief explanation of what GNI indicates, and how the Rwanda measure relates to those of other developing countries. Likewise for HDI, though that is a little clearer given that you have added a ranking. Nothing elaborate is required, but basic identification of terms should not require the use of links. The fact that other articles don't do this is to their detriment and is not an advisable precedent. Brianboulton (talk) 10:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Done - the HDI is now mentioned in the text (History section) in connection with its rise through the 2000s. And I have decided to remove the Gini as (a) I can't see an appropriate place to slot it into the main body of the article, (b) the figure cited was very old and (c) Gini is just one measure (to do with inequality) that might be of interest when studying a country's statistics; in my opinion child mortality, life expectancy, percentage living in poverty etc. are all equally interesting figures but we don't mention those in the infobox. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is in pretty good shape, but the article is missing a section that is in most other FA level articles on countries (such as Australia), some of it seems to put an unduly positive spin on the country and I have concerns over sourcing. In particular:
    • The article doesn't have equivalent sections on 'Foreign relations and military'
      Foreign relations is subsumed within the section on Politics and Government, and I find it appropriately covered for the summary style of a country article. I agree that something should be briefly mentioned about the military. If there are main articles on military or foreign relations in Rwanda, these could be linked at the top of the section. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Countries/Templates#Sections, Foreign relations and military is not a required section for a country article. This reflects the best consensus that could be reached following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countries/Templates. Also, Cameroon, an FA which I used as a loose template for Rwanda does not have FR/M. As Lemurbaby says Foreign relations is somewhat covered by Politics. I could add a sentence or two about Military if you think that's important, but not convinced it merits more than that. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 20:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The history section doesn't mention Rwanda's central role throughout the war in Congo during the 1990s and 2000s (aka the 'Great War of Africa'), and this is brushed over in the 'Politics and government' section.
      I agree, it would be good to add a sentence or two touching on the genocide's repercussions in terms of refugee flow and its role in sparking the war in Congo. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - I have added such a sentence.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "the country's Human Development Index grew by 3.3%, the largest increase of any country" - is this meaningful? Given the results of the genocide, I imagine that its HDI would have been very low to start with, so it's probably not difficult to grow quickly.
      This is meaningful, as Rwanda has been consistently growing more rapidly than most other countries in the entire world (the genocide was 17 years ago so it's no longer just about recovering from that). I'd recommend helping put the country's economic strength into perspective by including some info related to the EDPRS progress report that was just released, showing Rwanda not only continues to be one of the best performing countries in Africa, but has also reduced inequalities in wealth distribution over the past 10 years (really exceptional). Read this. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - I have included poverty and child mortality reduction stats from that survey. Let me know if this suits.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Looks good, though it would be helpful to say what the child mortality rate is now (eg, is high?) Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      (Done) Hmm... on looking at the actual report (rather than the report of the report), I can't see any actual figures for the child mortality so not sure where the 41% came from - all the report says is that the level is now "about the same as Kenya" which is hardly very scientific! I have now referenced the poverty figures to the actual report, and changed the mortality to use UN statistics between 2000 and 2009, which show a somewhat more modest but still significant reduction of around 38% (suggesting the 41% figure is probably not even correct). Thanks and let me know if this suits  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems a bit of a stretch to say that what's apparently the 66th least corrupt out of 180 countries "has low corruption levels". Transparency International ranks Rwanda's corruption at 4.0 on a scale where 0 is the most corrupt and 10 the least.
      This can be corrected by putting it into context: "Low corruption levels relative to most other African countries" - and then retaining all the same stats to let people draw their own conclusions about what they suggest for Rwanda's corruption levels relative to the larger world. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I have followed Lemurbaby's suggestion here. Let me know if it cuts the mustard...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:55, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That helps. Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - I'll assume this point is satisfied, unless you tell me otherwise :)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The constitution provides for an Ombudsman, whose duties include prevention and fighting of corruption." - this is referenced directly to the constitition. Does this position actually exist in practice, and is it effective?
      The reference to the sentence after that links to a BBC article talking about the man appointed as Ombudsman, so it exists. How effective they are would be difficult to say objectively - I think the way Amakuru has written it by simply stating facts without including assessments of that kind is appropriately objective. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      That's an eight year old news story. Does the position still exist? Has the requirement that politicians declare their wealth it talked about being introduced actually been obeyed in practice since then? Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes it does. they have a facebook page, and a website here. Corruption really isn't a major issue in Rwanda, unlike most other African countries. It's remarkably easy to get things done in this country. Lemurbaby (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK excellent, and that's probably a better source than the old news story. Transparency International appears to have quite a bit on Rwanda on their website as well. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Done - I have referenced these facts to the Ombudsman's website and a 2011 newspaper article confirming that the Ombudsman applies sanctions to those who don't declare their wealth.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The economy has since strengthened, with per-capita GDP (PPP) estimated at $1,284 in 2011,[3] compared with $416 in 1994" - is this adjusted for inflation?
      The source document should include that information. Since it's IMF I would expect it has been adjusted. I don't believe this kind of detail typically included in the infobox, but if you've found examples that show otherwise, please let us know here. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, the source says that they're in current dollars, so the figures are comparable. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The unequivocal statement that "The press is tightly restricted and newspapers routinely self-censor to avoid government reprisals." seems ill at ease with the earlier statements that the anti-democratic nature of the government is merely 'alleged' and 'claimed' by various NGOs. It would be better to just state that Rwanda is a limited (at best) democracy rather than present these as being merely criticisms. I believe that a number of foreign governments have also criticised the Rwandan government in recent years, so the NGOs aren't alone.
      I can't agree with you here. That would be "taking sides" in a contentious debate. It's important that the neutrality of the encyclopedia be preserved. There are plenty of reasons the Rwandan government gives for restricting the press and other typical features of democracy. Restriction of press does not necessarily mean the government is anti-democratic. Democratization in a country like this is a process and given the potentially lethal consequences of allowing freedom of speech and total political liberty (as the Rwandan experience clearly demonstrates), being cautious about when and how to open those doors may reflect more prudence than any intrinsically anti-democratic sentiment. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The article doesn't present this as being a debate: quite the opposite in fact. There's lots of material stating as fact that Rwanda is a democracy with all kinds of functioning institutions, and the material arguing that this isn't quite the case is presented as only being 'claims'. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Whether Rwanda has a democratic system of government (in the political science sense of the term) is not debatable, since that is the form of government established by the constitution. It does have all kinds of functioning institutions, as well. (Is there a particular reason why you might think it doesn't?) The debate I'm referring to is over whether the government should open up control of the media and political opposition. It's correct to present critiques (and praise) as claims as long as objective and credible statistics are not available to back them up. I don't know whether the debate here should be presented in any more detail than Amakuru has already done, by indicating at several points the type of critiques made by outside parties. Lemurbaby (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Human Rights Watch is pretty scathing of Rwanda's democratic credentials: [2] (eg, "the government failed to fulfill its professed commitment to democracy" due to the suppression of the political opposition prior to the presidential election). This is a more recent source that what was quoted from HRW in the article, and presents a much stronger set of criticisms than what's attributed to the organisation. I note that Amnesty International has raised similar concerns: [3], and Freedom House rates Rwanda as 'not free': [4]. As such, I'm moving to a full oppose due to my concerns about the article's neutrality and problems with sourcing. Nick-D (talk) 07:37, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Amakuru mentioned some of these criticisms in the article, so I don't understand why you feel it is non-neutral. What specifically would you expect to see (i.e. what can Amakuru correct) so that you no longer have these concerns about neutrality and sourcing? Lemurbaby (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The article should state what the actual status of the country's political system is rather than just describe the theoretical constitutional arrangements while presenting the reality as being 'claims' from NGOs (for instance, the article states that "Rwanda is a presidential unitary republic, based upon a multi-party system", while the above reports make it clear that opposition political parties are being actively suppressed by the government). There appears to be a gap between theory and practice here which the article isn't picking up. I think that the sourcing issues are pretty clear (more up to date sources need to be used, the problems with the following material need to be fixed and the travel guides need to be replaced with something more reliable). This article isn't ready for FA status at present I'm afraid, and I really don't say that lightly as it does have a lot to recommend it and it's obvious that a lot of effort has gone into it, so I hope that the above isn't coming across as being too harsh (I know from personal experience how tough it is to write FA level articles on 'big' topics, especially those concerning non-English speaking developing countries). Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Nick, thanks for your detailed comments and for taking the time to look the article over. I would like to make a few points in defence of the way things are structured at present.
      • Firstly, AFAIK the constitutional arrangements are not just theoretical, they really are what exists on the ground. The institutions and provisions of the 2003 constitutions are all there, from the Parliament and the Supreme Court through to the anti-corruption ombudsman. And unlike the mock institutions of a true dictatorship, they do the jobs they are slated to do: in terms of the *practicalities* of how government functions in Rwanda, and what citizens can expect of the government, they are exactly as stated. Therefore it doesn't seem unreasonable to me to detail these institutions in the article and present their existence as verified fact.
      • Regarding the HRW and other reports, it is quite correct to give those the time of day, because they are there, they are part of the lexicon of Rwanda, there may be some truth in then, and we should make the reader aware of what those reports say. However, if the article is to remain NPOV, it *cannot* present those as facts, because they are strictly allegations. An alternative view and some inconsistencies in HRW's own line is presented in this article from a Ugandan newspaper.[5] Also, and slightly separate from the question of whether things are free and fair, is the question of whether the government really is the one wanted by the people. In most dictatorships that would be a definite no. But in Rwanda it's not so clear. For example, in this Guardian piece it opines that Kagame "Kagame could win this presidential election without campaigning". So, if that is to be believed, the most favoured person won the election and democracy prevailed.
      • Anyway, the bottom line for me is that if the article comes across as non-neutral then that is certainly unintentional (I personally am extremely agnostic on the question of whether democracy really prevails in Rwanda and am no closer to an answer even after many years living there; interestingly when I once showed the article to a Rwandan he was horrified at the perceived bias *against* the government). And if you and others feel that more article space should be given to detailing the allegations of the human rights organisations, conditions applied to sentences such as the multi-party one etc, or some kind of more rigorous presentation of the "debate" then I would be happy to try to work those in. What I would not support is statements saying categorically that the institutions don't work or that the country is an out-and-out dictatorship because that really would be presenting just one side of the debate. Thanks again  — Amakuru (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I think that we're going to have to disagree then, I'm afraid. Those organisations are among the real heavyweights of the NGO world, and they all say basically the same thing in regards to the suppression of the political opposition in recent years, so it's well beyond 'allegations'. My suggested approach is that you describe the theoretical structure of the country's political structure alongside a discussion of what things are like on the ground. This would be in line with the approach used in the the (very) broadly comparable FAs Belarus, Cameroon and Chad. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Oh well, thanks for your reply and I will certainly take your comments on board and see (in the next week or two) if the politics section can be structured in a way that addresses your concerns. Where there are sources presenting evidence of the theory not meeting the practice I will make sure they get the time of day simultaneous with the description of the theory, for example on the multi-party point. Whether this is enough to satisfy your objections I have no idea, but hopefully it will be a useful exercise anyway.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Nick-D, have you found any evidence in the reports you cite that refute Amakuru's statement "constitutional arrangements are not just theoretical, they really are what exists on the ground. The institutions and provisions of the 2003 constitutions are all there, from the Parliament and the Supreme Court through to the anti-corruption ombudsman. And unlike the mock institutions of a true dictatorship, they do the jobs they are slated to do: in terms of the *practicalities* of how government functions in Rwanda, and what citizens can expect of the government, they are exactly as stated"? As someone who lives here, speaks with Rwandese people on a daily basis, follows Rwandan news and interacts with various bodies of Rwandan government to do my job, I find Amakuru has summed up the reality of government here perfectly. Rwanda is considered a gem in Africa for its exemplary transparency, efficacy and relatively low corruption. If you've found claims to the contrary I would love to read them. If not, it would be helpful to hone in on what the real issue is. Right now I see you talk about the (entire) article lacking neutrality when as far as I can tell the issue is just in the political section. And within the political section the main issue I see you bringing up is the concerns that NGOs and governments have about the Rwandan government's silencing of opposition figures. Democracy as a form of government and freedom of speech do not have to go hand in hand the way they do in the American vision of democracy as a larger social concept. People vote, the elections are considered fairly transparent, people are generally satisfied with who's in power (as Amakuru said, Kagame is very popular because he's getting things done). There is a growing sense of frustration in Kigali at least regarding limits on freedom of speech, but that doesn't mean the country does not have a functioning multi-party democracy (some of the candidates elected belong to other parties than the RPF, though they may not be considered "opposition" parties). Local opinion about the silencing of opposition figures is mixed; most often these people are removed from the political scene by jailing them because they frame their political platform in terms of ethnicity, which is illegal here now (something like "promoting genocide ideology"). For its part, the position of the government here is that the NGOs and foreign governments that are pressuring it to allow more freedom of speech (i.e. to talk about these historic "ethnic"/caste divisions and, especially, to use them as a basis for political campaigning) are failing to understand that this could open a can of worms that could spark another bout of violence. The government also raises the point that such criticism coming from Western sources that failed to take any action to protect the genocide victims 18 years ago comes across as highly hypocritical. So if this kind of information is going to be included in greater detail in the article, I think it would need to include both sides in specific regard to the limits on freedom of speech and government opposition - the NGOs'/foreign governments' concerns, and the Rwandese government's justification for their actions. Do you agree that a short paragraph touching on these points would be adequate to address your concerns? Do you agree that the article adequately and appropriately covers the structure of government and reflects reality on the ground in terms of functioning (politically) democratic institutions, which allow multi-party competition (but may limit "opposition" groups)? Especially if the issue of opposition groups is discussed in the new paragraph concerning the debate around freedom of speech and political opposition? I'm trying to get to the specifics of the content you'd like to see added and addressed to feel satisfied with the neutrality of the article. Lemurbaby (talk) 04:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      My basic concern is that the politics section states that Rwanda's system of government is "based upon a multi-party system." when this isn't actually true based on the assessments of leading monitoring organisations I provided links to. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Hi Nick, just to say that I certainly intend to provide more clarity on the multi-party point, citing the views of HRW as well as the RW government's views on the matter. I intend to get this done within the next week, along with the other points raised, so hoping the FAC will remain open for long enough for you to have another look at it. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm happy to say that the changes to this section over the last few days look very good to me and that my comments here are now fully addressed. The new material is even handed and nicely written - great work. A few of my other comments are yet to be addressed though: I'll strike the others to make them clearer. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Great. Glad you're happy with how it looks now. I'll keep chipping away at the remaining points in the next few days. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are more recent figures for income earned from tourism available than those from 2008?
      Done - I have replaced 2008 statistics with those for January - June 2011. Will keep an eye out for full year stats as and when they become available.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source for the statement that "Despite the Genocide, the country is increasingly perceived internationally as a safe destination; 980,577 people visited the country in 2008, up from 826,374 in 2007" doesn't state that the country is seen as being a safe destination (though I believe that this is true).
      Done - you are quite correct, although thankfully page 6 of the same source does make that point, so I have referenced that.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      It also notes that only 4.9 percent of this travel was actually holiday tourism (a reduction on the level the year before) and business travel was the most common reason people visited the country, so this material doesn't fit well in a discussion of tourism in Rwanda.
      True, although actually according to the definition mentioned at Tourism (and cited to the World Tourism Organization), business and family visitors still fall under the tourist definition. And the source document being used for this clearly refers to them as tourists as well. Anyway, to try to clarify this point I have included the comment about holidaymakers contributing 43% of revenue despite being only 9% (as of 2011) of the numbers. I have also included the fact that 16% of visitors are from outside Africa. Let me know how that sits with you. thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 00:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      OK, that works. However, the lead says "Tourism is a fast-growing sector and is now the country's leading foreign exchange earner, the most popular activity being the tracking of mountain gorillas." which seems incorrect given that business is by far the most common activity. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Fixed - I have changed the gorilla sentences to more qualitative about thousands visiting per year and prepared to pay high prices rather than stating it to be the "most popular".  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The statement that "Rural to urban migration, which was very low before 1994, now stands at 4.2% per year." needs a reference.
      Done - I'm not actually sure where the figure came from (that part was written a couple of years ago), but I have found alternative stats and sources. Interestingly the proportion of urban dwellers has gone down slightly in the past 5 years, having previously risen a lot. The rural population is growing faster than the urban anyway though, so the actual urban numbers are still rising slightly.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The new statement that "Urbanization|Rural to urban migration]], which was previously very, became swignificant after 1994." is referenced to something published in 1995, which obviously doesn't support the implication that this has been a long-running trend. Also, there's a missing word and a spelling mistake in this sentence. Nick-D (talk) 22:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Oops... I have now dropped the sentence about a rural-urban migration increase altogether as none of the sources state the fact unequivocally. This: [6] comments on the matter, but speculates that it might be to do with economic development as well; and that rural fertility rates are also very high, which muddies the water. I have left the urban population statistics (rise from 6% to 16%) in place, so people can draw their own conclusions from the hard facts. As ever, let me know if this suits, or if there's anything else you'd like me to say.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm concerned about the heavy reliance on travel guides for sourcing (particularly Briggs & Booth 2006) Nick-D (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      The problem with a topic like Rwanda (and I think you're aware of this, as you alluded to it above), is that compared with topics relating to "Western" countries there is very little published material regarding it. Furthermore, what published material there is is overwhelmingly regarding the 1994 Genocide, with far less on other aspects of the country. As someone who has spent some time living in the country, I know many facts that are not written down in any internationally verifiable location. Obviously my knowledge of these facts alone, being essentially original research, cannot permit them to enter Wikipedia. Per WP:V, that makes them true facts but not verifiable facts. However, when those facts also appear in a travel guide, written by someone with knowledge of the country, and published by a reputable publisher, that should give them the sufficient level of verifiability required.
      I have not seen a guideline on Wikipedia that printed travel guides should not be used as sources, and when it comes down to it they are probably at least as accurate as newspaper articles published in the New York Times etc, which are explicitly permitted as sources.
      Having said all the above, I will certainly have another look at the Briggs/Booth refs and see if any of them might be source-able elsewhere. If so then great, but if not, I wouldn't support removing material that is of use in gaining a complete understanding of the country, just because the only way to verify it is through the travel guide. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, I appreciate that sourcing will be limited for this topic, and allowances do need to be made . Travel guides are problematic as sources for FA level articles as they're not (and obviously don't aspire to be) scholarly-type works, and probably weren't fact checked before going to press. I note that you've managed to get the number of references to the travel guide down a lot, but it should be possible to make further replacements (for instance, reference 52 on the constitution). Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I take your point about reliability and fact checking, and we should set a high bar, although a counterargument would be that the vast majority of sources used across WP are non-scholarly in nature. I particular, newspaper articles, which are explicitly allowed if they are from a reputable paper, are probably no more fact checked than a guidebook, likely less so as once written they tend to stand unedited for ever, whereas guidebooks update themselves revision by revision as reader feedback comes to light.
      Anyway, re the reduction of the Briggs/Booth refs, that is a work in progress - I did the History section last night, but then it was getting kind of late so I shut down the 'puter without looking at others further down the article. Hopefully will do more on that tonight.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, if the outstanding issues Nick-D raised above are addressed. I'm living in Rwanda currently and working in development here, so I can speak to the accuracy, scope and neutrality of the article, which is very well-written. Nibiza, Amakuru! Lemurbaby (talk) 06:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, Amakuru, you might want to try some of these resources to help clarify in the article some of the points that Nick-D has raised: the 2010 CPIA for governance, transparency and budget management; the 2012 MCA scorecard for control of corruption and institutional effectiveness; the DFID FRA from June 2011 for fiduciary responsibility. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I will look into those. Hope to have a bit of time to work on this shortly; I'm almost done with the Briggs & Booth referencing now.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with the note that of course Nick-D's concerns are valid and should be dealt with. The structure is good, although I would suggest the single paragraph climate subsection is simply included in Geography and that the two paragraph media and communications section is included under infrastructure. Short sections are ugly! This is a concise article, which still covers a wide range of points. CMD (talk) 18:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Comments reading through now. Hopefully Nick-D will strike through issues he sees as resolved as discussion can be tricky to follow. I'll jot notes below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 17:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... period around ten thousand years ago, or in the long humid period which followed, up to around 3000 BC - not fond of flipping between "years ago" and "BC". I think aligning them all is good. In this case the simplest is to change the first one.
Done  — Amakuru (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some plant species are endemic to Akagera - this is true of many places. A number (of plant species) would be good here.
Done - I can't actually find any examples or numbers for this. I have, however, found a source listing some "rare or endangered" species in Akagera, so have replaced the fact with this. Let me know if that suits.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:05, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, much better idea. Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:37, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The people of Rwanda form one ethnic group, the Banyarwanda, who have a shared language and cultural heritage dating back to the pre-colonial Kingdom of Rwanda. - this sentence is mostly superfluous, as the one ethnic group has been discussed in hte preceding section. In fact, I don't think the article loses anything by dropping it altogether.
Done. I have also moved the remainder of the first paragraph to the end of the section as it seemed a bit out of place on its own.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Human rights organisations claim that the government suppresses... - one thing you can do here is list the organisations, which prevents the reader mentally generalising one way or the other. Exactness has its merits :)
Done - I have listed Amnesty and Freedom House. HRW are also mentioned twice earlier in the section; let me know if you want to mention them here too.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see the discussion above on whether a foreign relations section is needed - I'm not sure but I think a little expanding (a few sentences) would be good - a word or two on relations with Burundi are appropriate to include I think. Also relationships with DRC - does this mean skirmishes? Is the border closed? Anything that gives the reader a better idea here is good. Also if there have been refugees from Uganda it might be worth a word on their relations.
Done - I have added some extra detail on the country's relationships with France and also with Uganda and updated the DRC to indicate improved relations. I don't know if anything else needs to be added. I'm slightly worried that it might start looking like a list rather than prose if one mentions the relations with every country, not to mention that each case would probably merit several sentences on its own. Let me know how it sits with you now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Great - well done on digging up what you can. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Overall, looks pretty good otherwise WRT prose. I've not spotchecked the sources though. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- more later. Johnbod (talk) 21:36, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Cryptic C62. I worked extensively with Amakuru to improve the clarity and accessibility of the prose, so I am a bit biased in that regard. Some other quick nitpick checks, which have all been addressed:

  • (good) No one- or two-sentence paragraphs
  • (good) Image captions are correctly punctuated
  • (good) Correct use of en dashes
  • (good) Wikilink density looks reasonably consistent
  • (done) The lead does not appear to summarize any material from the Administrative divisions section. This can be remedied by inserting a snippet, or by making the aforementioned section into a subsection of Politics and government or Geography.
    Done - I have included a snippet.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (done) There needs to be a consistent format when introducing non-English words: either italicize all of them or italicize none of them. Personally, I would prefer to see them all italicized. The Culture section is in particular need of attention on this point.
    Fixed - I have gone with italicised for all, as you suggest.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • (done) Similarly, there needs to be a consistent format for percentages: either 55% or 55 %, but not both. I prefer the unspaced variety. The Demographics section needs help on this point.
    Fixed - I have gone with no space for all percentages, as you suggest.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As always, thanks for all the effort that you've put into this so far! --Cryptic C62 · Talk 17:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comments - Is the image review from the previous FAC still valid, i.e. no changes? And, have spotchecks been done? Graham Colm (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate's comment - Spotchecks of the sources, for verification and close paraphrasing, are still needed. Graham Colm (talk) 14:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see you struck this one out on the FAC talk page, is it still needed? ClayClayClay 20:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Sorry I'm an idiot. :( Graham Colm (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Graham, any tips on how to get this process done? Not sure if any spotcheckers are going to come out of the woodwork or if there's any way we can ask someone to do it? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I was asking because I am interested in doing one. I will have a review up within the next few hours :) (and Graham, you are not an idiot) ClayClayClay 07:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotcheck of reliable sources:

Note: the ref numbers below refer to this version of the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nos. 11, 22, 24, 25, 161, 169, 173 (Prunier); 53, 59, 63, 64, 66, 91 (CJCR) okay
  • No. 54 (CJCR) should be separated: presidential elections is on p. 25, while prime ministerial stuff is on p. 29.
    Fixed  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. 68, 71, 74 (CJCR) (pp. 148, 142, and 182, respectively) have page numbers outside of the range of the 55-page document.
    Fixed (it seems I accidentally put article numbers rather than page numbers for these)  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding CJCR references in general: Some of the text cited to these references resembles close paraphrasing; you should go through and try to rewrite the information to alleviate this concern.
    Do you have an example of a problem case? The problem is that most of the CJCR points are short single phrases, for example each of the list of powers of the President comes from one article detailing those powers. It seems hard to avoid close paraphrasing in that instance as you're pretty much just saying what the power is. Happy to have a go at rewording, or to change bits to quotations but not sure which to change at this stage. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. 21 (Prunier) page numbers (currently pp. 14-15) should be pp. 13-14 (I'd assume, as I found all the other information from this source on the listed page numbers).
    Fixed  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. 29 (Pottier): I cannot find this on the given page (p. 11), nor while searching around; maybe somewhere in pp. 110-119?
    Fixed - I don't think Pottier contained this information, it was a byproduct of some text refactoring. Have inserted a corrected ref.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. 168 (Prunier) the source very weakly supports the information:
    • Article: "Rwanda has been a unified state since pre-colonial times with only one ethnic group, the Banyarwanda..."
    • Source: "If war acted as a kind of 'social coagulant' where Tutsi, Hutu and Twa, although still unequal, were nevertheless first and foremost Banyarwanda facing a common enemy..."
    • Note: This is such a minor point, so forgive me, but the book seems to be saying here that the three groups come together in times of war, not that they are all part of a central ethnic group, per se. I'm sure there are better sources for this information.
      Fixed - I have reffed the unified state point separately, from a source explaning how the Germans inherited and maintained the old state; the ethnic group issue is now referenced to Mamdani; the Banyarwanda group actually includes areas beyond the borders of the state of Rwanda so I've reworded slightly to hopefully reconcile with that reference.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notes/References sections errors:

  • No. 139: should include a year per #137, 119, 50.
    Disagree - the three you mention are "news" type pages, so a year seemed appropriate whereas the former #139 (now RDB IV) is an informational page regarding the national parks. As far as I can tell the page does not even indicate which year it was written.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Briggs and Booth 2010, RDB IV: both are not used in the article and should be removed from this section (pointed out by Ucucha's HarvErrors script).
    Fixed  — Amakuru (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The majority of the information I checked seems to be cited correctly, but I am concerned that the CJCR information wasn't taken care of well enough, as there are close paraphrasing issues and citations to page numbers that don't exist. ClayClayClay 09:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The minor errors have for the most part been dealt with, excepting Graham's additional findings below. Sorry for not recognizing that one article that didn't have a year. Also, thanks for putting the old revision up at the top. ClayClayClay 18:52, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Clay, there are other errors; Ref. 65 gives page 19 of the CJCR as the source for information that is on page 18. These errors may seem trivial, but they should not occur in a Featured Article. Graham Colm (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, I hope - I'm wondering if there was an issue with rendering here. I'm think the page numbers of a .doc file are not necessarily set in stone, and I have definitely seen them appear differently between Word and OpenOffice.org in the past. I have therefore changed all CJCR refs from page based to location based, detailing the specific article of the constitution in which the fact appears. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:23, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.