Style: Not ready: Various concerns spread over several critera. See below.
Comments by reviewer:
This seems promising, but I've a number of concerns distributed over several of the review criteria so that, considering them collectively, I feel this is not yet ready for publication.
The first paragraph is very long, and more importantly, this reflects a certain lack of sharp focus. Most of it is clearly too much detail for the lede unless the particular thing being described were the focal event, but it seems these are all parts of an intended whole treated as a composite. Sometimes a reviewer can fix an over-detailed lead by simply inserting a paragraph break after the first or second sentence; but here, the first sentence specifies an event (the army entering the capital) that the article never gives a date for, while the second sentence gives a date for what is pretty clearly not the focal event but a detail within the larger situation.
The headline has a seemingly related problem. "Tensions" is too vague for a focus, and smacks of subjectivity (hence, becomes a neutrality problem); the specific event mentioned is, again, not fixed in time by the article. This headline atm is also not a sentence; it's a noun phrase, with the event mentioned as a modifier to the (awkward) noun tensions.
The second paragraph starts with a sentence about the coup being "widely condemned by the international community". This makes me uncomfortable; it's kind of vague. It might be okay... but at best teeters on the brink of analysis (disallowed by our neutrality policy). Something more concrete to at least back it up would make it work much better; a quote might go well. The second sentence of the paragraph says "The coup may have been a response [...]" (emphasis added) — as presented, that's analysis. Either report that the coup happened after the other thing, and let readers make their own judgements, or attribute the analysis to somebody (somebody who matters, not another news service).
Hopefully these things can be addressed straightforwardly, although one should also do a double-check for further developments in the story before resubmitting (a reviewer would need to do so in any case, since further developments can cause an article to lose freshness even though it's chronologically recent).
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Style: Not ready: Various concerns spread over several critera. See below.
Comments by reviewer:
This seems promising, but I've a number of concerns distributed over several of the review criteria so that, considering them collectively, I feel this is not yet ready for publication.
The first paragraph is very long, and more importantly, this reflects a certain lack of sharp focus. Most of it is clearly too much detail for the lede unless the particular thing being described were the focal event, but it seems these are all parts of an intended whole treated as a composite. Sometimes a reviewer can fix an over-detailed lead by simply inserting a paragraph break after the first or second sentence; but here, the first sentence specifies an event (the army entering the capital) that the article never gives a date for, while the second sentence gives a date for what is pretty clearly not the focal event but a detail within the larger situation.
The headline has a seemingly related problem. "Tensions" is too vague for a focus, and smacks of subjectivity (hence, becomes a neutrality problem); the specific event mentioned is, again, not fixed in time by the article. This headline atm is also not a sentence; it's a noun phrase, with the event mentioned as a modifier to the (awkward) noun tensions.
The second paragraph starts with a sentence about the coup being "widely condemned by the international community". This makes me uncomfortable; it's kind of vague. It might be okay... but at best teeters on the brink of analysis (disallowed by our neutrality policy). Something more concrete to at least back it up would make it work much better; a quote might go well. The second sentence of the paragraph says "The coup may have been a response [...]" (emphasis added) — as presented, that's analysis. Either report that the coup happened after the other thing, and let readers make their own judgements, or attribute the analysis to somebody (somebody who matters, not another news service).
Hopefully these things can be addressed straightforwardly, although one should also do a double-check for further developments in the story before resubmitting (a reviewer would need to do so in any case, since further developments can cause an article to lose freshness even though it's chronologically recent).
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
I was unable to verify a bunch of things from the sources. (Perhaps a source changed out from under us, or a source somehow got lost in the shuffle? Is there a lump of material somewhere in the sources that I overlooked wholesale?) If one detail were missing I might simply cut it or otherwise find some way to cope, but due to the amount of material involved that seemed problematic for reviewer independence. What I didn't find:
Para 1, last sentence: the announcement was by the President, and was on Friday (the date is especially important for freshness).
Para 2, sentence 1: The ECOWAS people flew to BF?
Para 3, sentence 2: whole sentence (about the Mogho Naba).
Para 3, sentence 1: President was released on Monday.
Para 3, sentence 2: whole sentence (about report before coup).
Para 3, sentence 4: whole sentence (about two previous coups).
(There was actually another item on my list, that I found, to my reasonable satisfaction, while writing this list up.)
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
I was unable to verify a bunch of things from the sources. (Perhaps a source changed out from under us, or a source somehow got lost in the shuffle? Is there a lump of material somewhere in the sources that I overlooked wholesale?) If one detail were missing I might simply cut it or otherwise find some way to cope, but due to the amount of material involved that seemed problematic for reviewer independence. What I didn't find:
Para 1, last sentence: the announcement was by the President, and was on Friday (the date is especially important for freshness).
Para 2, sentence 1: The ECOWAS people flew to BF?
Para 3, sentence 2: whole sentence (about the Mogho Naba).
Para 3, sentence 1: President was released on Monday.
Para 3, sentence 2: whole sentence (about report before coup).
Para 3, sentence 4: whole sentence (about two previous coups).
(There was actually another item on my list, that I found, to my reasonable satisfaction, while writing this list up.)
If possible, please address the above issues then resubmit the article for another review (by replacing {{tasks}} in the article with {{review}}). This talk page will be updated with subsequent reviews.
Measures by reporter significantly reduced concerns from the previous review; thanks. There were still things I couldn't find, but cutting them was not uncomfortably extensive.
(Looks like there are further developments in the story already, though nothing that would obviously preclude publication.)
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.
Measures by reporter significantly reduced concerns from the previous review; thanks. There were still things I couldn't find, but cutting them was not uncomfortably extensive.
(Looks like there are further developments in the story already, though nothing that would obviously preclude publication.)
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.
