Talk:African Union summit closes; bloc reaffirms member suspensions, support for trade deal
Headline[edit]
@CSJJ104: A more descriptive headline really would be nice here, perhaps specify what they agreed upon or said? Heavy Water (talk) 19:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- What did you have in mind? Something like "African Union summit closes with continued suspension of members and agreement on trade deal"? Although this feels quite wordy. CSJJ104 (talk) 20:49, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe just "African Union summit closes; bloc reaffirms member suspensions, support for trade deal"? The sources don't say they announced any agreement on trade, just a recommitment to the previous deal. Heavy Water (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds good to me. I've made the move now :) CSJJ104 (talk) 03:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe just "African Union summit closes; bloc reaffirms member suspensions, support for trade deal"? The sources don't say they announced any agreement on trade, just a recommitment to the previous deal. Heavy Water (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Title[edit]
@Heavy Water I should say (at risk of being pedantic), from what I've noticed in published articles (and the style guide I'm inclined to believe tacitly endorses?) when the person's position is not exactly cited viz. "The Canadian premier" vs "The Canadian Prime Minister" it's fine to downspace, so "AU chairman" where the actual title is "Chairperson of the African Union" is technically correct. But I support your change. JJLiu112 (talk) 17:15, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Review of revision 4711212 [Passed][edit]
 |
Revision 4711212 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: @CSJJ1104: I changed out a lot of words and rearranged some sentences for distance from source. Please be careful with that. All was verifiable, neutral, and well-written, though. The media tends to write about Africa only when something destabilizing or tragic happens, so I found this very interesting to read. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Revision 4711212 of this article has been reviewed by Heavy Water (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 18:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC).
Comments by reviewer: @CSJJ1104: I changed out a lot of words and rearranged some sentences for distance from source. Please be careful with that. All was verifiable, neutral, and well-written, though. The media tends to write about Africa only when something destabilizing or tragic happens, so I found this very interesting to read. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer. |
Image caption[edit]
@Heavy Water - Thanks for the review and your helpful comments :) Possibly I'm misunderstanding, but should the image caption not read "A map of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement with signatories who have not ratified the agreement in light green." As it stands I interpreted it as they had not formally joined the African Union. CSJJ104 (talk) 02:28, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
- Oh, yeah, that was what I meant. I have fixed it. Thanks for catching it, Heavy Water (talk) 02:38, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment upon archiving[edit]
The statement that says "AfCFTA, initiated in 2020, has faltered" seems like a value judgement. According to whom? And by what standards is it faltering? I have not read the sources and maybe it is too late to add attribution or expand on what 'faltering' means for an organization such as this. SVTCobra 08:27, 12 March 2023 (UTC)