Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Jean-Baptiste Hachème/1

Jean-Baptiste Hachème[edit]

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • GAN review page

Result: Not listed. Geometry guy 19:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I selected this article for review and had immediate problems with its comprehensiveness. After discussion with the main editor, it appears that no more information on this subject may be available. I am uncomfortable passing the article in its current state and, with the main editors agreement, have brought the article here to generate a wider consensus about whether this article qualifies as a GA. I'm happy to abide by the GAR decision, and I believe this may be a test case regarding size and comprhensiveness at GAR.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:13, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In terms of readable prose size, as of 2 December 2008, 70 current GAs are shorter than this nominated article. Neither length nor comprehensiveness are GA requirements. The pertinent questions I believe, are "is it broad in its coverage?" and "is it reliably sourced?". Geometry guy 21:11, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, by comprehensiveness I meant "is it broad in its coverage?", specifically the problems concerning coverage of his life before 1963 and after 1974 outlined on the talk page.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is likely that his life prior to 1963 is not notable, and there is probably nothing to say about his imprisonment. However, the article doesn't even give the year of his birth, and readers will shortly want to know whether he survived 20 years hard labor or not. Furthermore the main source is tertiary (a historical dictionary) and one of the other two sources is also tertiary. The added last sentences "Very little is written of Hachème. It is unsure if he is still alive or not." beg the (here somewhat self-referential) question, "according to whom?"

There is plenty of reason to believe that further sources exist and I see no compelling reason to list this article as a GA. Geometry guy 22:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And why do you think that further sources exist? I have exhaused any I could find, and new ones you mention would be helpful. Please note that Historical Dictionary is not tertiary: Mr. Decalo actually went into Dahomey and investigated various subjects. Not sure if that makes this a primary source, but he is (was?) a professor of African studies and has had material published in academic journals. Shillington 2005 was only added to avoid the stigma of this being a two-source article. I can remove it if that is the concensus. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I added the last few sentences as a request by Jacky because we don't know anything about him. Admittedly Decalo 1976 i a bit dated, but it's the best we have. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:54, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What sources does Decalo use? What about contemporary newspapers?

As for Decalo himself, five minutes on the internet produced a revised 1995 third edition of his historical dictionary. I believe he is a retired professor who occasionally teaches at the University of Florida's Political Science department. Geometry guy 19:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Decalo used a bunch of primary sources in his work, as well as original research. I'll try to find the newer book on interlibrary loan; I did not know it existed. As for contemprary newspapers, Hacheme throws up nothing of value on Google News. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 23:07, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google News didn't exist in the 1970s. You have to go to the library for newspapers from that time. It looks to me like this discussion needs to be closed shortly (as "not listed"). Sorry, but I hope the new source is helpful. It may have a good bibliography. Geometry guy 23:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with length, but I do have problems with "addresses the main aspects of the topic". There is very little information here. The article raises more questions than it answers. What does "Fon origins" mean? And when I click on Fon I am taken to a disamb page. How significant is this person's origin to his situation? I'd like more information about the "brutal" crushing of the riots. What is the significance of his dismissal because he lived in the South? As this is a standalone article, we need support information. We also need cites for "Alleged to have plotted againgst Kouandete and Alphonse Alley" and "Very little is written of Hachème." And "It is unsure if he is still alive or not." I support closing this as I feel it needs more work than can be done in 7 days. SilkTork *^YES! 02:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Good articles can be short, but they shouldn't be stubby. This article seems incomplete in scope, leading me to think that it doesn't meet criterion 3. Like Silk Tork, I suspect it will take more than a few days to bring the article up to GA standards. Majoreditor (talk) 03:53, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I believe this article fails both 1a and 3a of the good article criteria and should not be listed at this time. "With the appointal of Emile Derlin Zinsou as president ..." is just one example of the fractured prose, but that could be easily fixed. More importantly, I am unconvinced as to broadness of the article's coverage. For instance, a cursory Google search shows that Hachème was released on amnesty, along with others, in 1984 ([1]). The fact that he was in charge of the government for only one day would also seem to be worth a mention. --Malleus Fatuorum 11:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Added his term in office (don't know why I didn't mention that in the article!) and fixed the Zinsou sentence. For his 1984 amnesty release, the link you provided was a search guide for Keesings World Archives and didnt mention Hacheme at all. I am perfectly content at letting this fail, as I am in the process of acquiring the updated Historical Dictionary and other sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs/editor review)}~ 16:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, my mistake. I've corrected the link. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]