Talk:AFRINIC

154.0.0.0

I was wondering if 154.0.0.0 should actually be 154.0.0.0/8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jftuga (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• AFRINIC Office.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Suspected COI editing 2021-2023

This article has had significant contributions from WP:SPAs , including POV material and links to non-reliable websites, much of which stayed in the article for years. I've cleaned up a lot of it, but I wanted to note this to help other editors look out for similar patterns:

• Special:Contributions/Taekooknd - 2021, added text critical of AFRINIC
• Special:Contributions/78.73.160.171 - 2021, added text critical of AFRINIC
• Special:Contributions/Lki2022 - 2022, added text critical of AFRINIC
• Special:Contributions/Deedotty - 2022, added text critical of AFRINIC
• Special:Contributions/Yaa88 - 2023, added links to nrs.help and btw.media
• Special:Contributions/Larus888 - 2023, added links to nrs.help
• Special:Contributions/Lala8888 - 2023, added links to nrs.help

Dreamyshade (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Related SPAs, via spamcheck for nrs.help, btw.media, and larus.net:

• Special:Contributions/Kikolo888 - 2024, added links to nrs.help, blocked for spam
• Special:Contributions/Wuyang888 - 2024, added links to nrs.help and btw.media, blocked and globally locked for spam
• Special:Contributions/BlueTechWave - 2024, blocked for promotion

Dreamyshade (talk) 02:17, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

PROPOSED EDITS

I would like to propose the following wording changes to improve factual precision and alignment with WP:V, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:BLP. These proposals do not remove notable events or criticism, but aim to ensure that attribution and descriptions reflect what is explicitly supported by the cited sources.

1) Relationship with the Number Resource Society (NRS)

Current wording (paraphrased):

“Lu is associated with the Number Resource Society (NRS)…”

Proposed replacement:

“Lu’s company, LARUS Limited, is listed as a member of the Number Resource Society (NRS), an advocacy organization founded in 2021.”

This wording more precisely reflects a verifiable organizational relationship rather than implying a direct personal affiliation.

2) Description of NRS and its policy position

Current wording (paraphrased):

“NRS is a lobbying group that has advocated for changing the entire regional Internet registry system…”

Proposed replacement:

“NRS is an advocacy organization that has published critical commentary on AFRINIC and promotes reforms to the regional Internet registry system, including a market-based approach that allows IP address ownership and unrestricted sales of IP address space.”

This retains the substance of NRS’s stated positions while avoiding interpretive characterization.

3) AFRINIC communication in May 2023

Current wording:

“In May 2023, AFRINIC stated that a communication released by the Number Resource Society caused confusion among AFRINIC members regarding a potential AFRINIC board election…”

Proposed replacement:

“In May 2023, AFRINIC issued a notice warning members about misleading messages regarding a purported board election and clarified that no AFRINIC board election was scheduled for 2023.”

The primary AFRINIC bulletin does not explicitly attribute the misleading messages to NRS, and this wording reflects what is directly stated in the source without assigning responsibility.

4) APNIC election-related content

Current wording (paraphrased):

“Lu and five additional people endorsed by the Number Resource Society ran for the APNIC board…”

Proposed replacement:

“In February 2023, Lu and five other individuals endorsed by the Number Resource Society stood as candidates for the Asia Pacific Network Information Centre (APNIC) board on a reform platform.”

This change clarifies the nature of the support without altering the event described.

These proposed changes are intended to improve accuracy, neutrality, and sourcing clarity. I am happy to adjust the wording further or discuss alternatives to reach consensus.

CrystalStacy (talk) 10:01, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

Undue weight and primary sources

@Mohd Ibramimi Your recent changes add a lot of detailed material about an individual person's views, relying on citations to WP:PRIMARY sources, which results in WP:UNDUE weight on that person's views. The subject of this article is AFRINIC, not Lu, NRS, Larus, BTW Media, or debates about IPv4 and RIRs in general, so it is only appropriate to very briefly cover Lu's views and activities as they directly relate to AFRINIC.

Also, do you have a conflict of interest on this topic? Please see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure. That's been an issue in the past on this article. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I understand the concern about WP:UNDUE and WP:PRIMARY. I will not re-add the longer version directly.

My intention was to improve attribution and sourcing around the existing subsection, but I agree that the wording should stay brief and directly related to AFRINIC. I am happy to propose a shorter version here on the talk page for review before making any further article edit.

Regarding conflict of interest, I understand Wikipedia's COI and paid-contribution disclosure expectations. I will make the appropriate disclosure if required and will avoid direct editing where there may be a concern. Mohd Ibramimi (talk) 02:46, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Sure, proposing changes on this talk page is a good way to work on constructive changes. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 07:21, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

@Velerieeejen See Wikipedia:Reliable sources and Wikipedia:Independent sources. The best citations for this article are secondary sources, such as news media, not citing Blue Tech Wave directly (which is a primary source in this context). Dreamyshade (talk) 01:37, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi Dreamyshade, thank you for the clarification. Understood, I have inserted the secondary sources to support the citation. Velerieeejen (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

@Velerieeejen It appears that you are trying to promote Lu's perspectives - please see WP:PROMOTION. Because this article is about AFRINIC, and because Wikipedia relies on secondary sources (WP:SECONDARY) material about Lu's views should generally be brief, limited to information that is directly relevant to AFRINIC, and cited to secondary sources. Lu's essays in CircleID are primary sources in this context. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:22, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

@DreamyshadeI understand your point that Lu's CircleID essays are primary sources in this context and that material about Lu's views should be brief, directly related to AFRINIC, and based on secondary sources Velerieeejen (talk) 01:42, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

@Velerieeejen What is your goal with the changes you keep trying to make? Dreamyshade (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2026 (UTC)

I will keep any proposed wording brief and directly related to the topic. If a proposed sentence is not suitable for the article, I am happy to discuss. Besides this, I am also reading and researching other topic article. My goal is to become a constructive Wikipedia editor. Velerieeejen (talk) 01:18, 17 June 2026 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:AFRINIC/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Dreamyshade (talk · contribs) 21:57, 24 June 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: 16dvnk (talk · contribs) 11:57, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Hello @Dreamyshade (talk · contribs)! I am pleased to start this review. Please note that this is my first GA review, so please forgive me if I make mistakes. I will try my best to reduce mistakes. (It also seems you are far more experienced than me, so you may correct my mistakes in the procedure) Now, here is a detailed review:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

---

This article is close to the criteria. Please read the below for how to improve the article. I will put this on hold for a week for you (or others) to improve the article.

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear, concise and understandable to an appropriately broad audience, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   It is actually pretty close to being understandable, but I would argue that IPv4, IPv6, address pool, etc. are too technical for a layperson.

   • Can you clarify or provide an example of what you'd like to see changed to make the article more understandable? Since this is a technical article, it has to use technical terms such as IPv4 and IPv6. See WP:TECH-CONTENT: "Making articles more understandable does not necessarily mean that detailed technical content should be removed." Examples of featured-quality technical articles: Parallel computing, Binary search. Examples of good-quality technical articles: DOM clobbering, Minneapolis wireless internet network, History sniffing. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
   • Following discussion of citing previous articles of similar technicality, and a change for IPV4 and IPV6, I will give it a preliminary pass, while a second opinion reviewer comes and gives feedback. 16dvnk (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
   • Sorry for the late response! It now passes. 16dvnk (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Looks pretty clean to me. However, in History, I can see that the subheadings like XYZ in 20XX and is very long. I would include a section like Allegations within the History and then 20XX etc. Similar issues in other sections, otherwise pretty clean.

   • I trimmed the years from the section headings to fit better with MOS:HEADINGS, including the cross-referenced guidance at MOS:AT ("recognizable name or description of the topic, balancing the criteria of being natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent"). Dreamyshade (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
   • Resolved. However, the second opinion says that they will take a look at here first, so I will set it to .16dvnk (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
   • Pass. 16dvnk (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

2. Is it verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   Clean!

   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):

   Most claims seem to be supported, perhaps some weaker claims with primary sources can be supported with one secondary source, but otherwise it should be fine.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Did a limited spot-check. Found no violations thus far. P.S I am traveling with limited data on mobile so I cannot present/do the detailed spot-checking. I have to fail this for now. I sincerely apologize for the inconvenience. May you please provide some quotations for ref numbers 1, 3, 19, 21, 39, 46, 59, 77, 89, 94, 101, 103 and 111 (or some on this list)? I will update this to pass if they check out. Thanks in advance.

   • Better, but now awaiting second opinion. 16dvnk (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
   • Pass. 16dvnk (talk) 13:54, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Only direct quotations were copied. Found no other glaring issues.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   Did some research and the coverage seems adequate.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   Did not find much issues.

4. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   Clean.

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

   No edit war, the only instance of anything remotely close was the sockpuppet edits, which were subsequently reverted.

6. 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:

   All are either in the public domain or a has a free-use license.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

   Seems pretty relevant. Captions are suitable.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Overall, this article approaches Good Article status. Unfortunately, Criterion 1 has failed due to overly technical terms and a minor violation of the MoS. I could not verify the sources due to an issue on my end. My apologies. Other than that, the article seems compliant. There might be some other minor issues, which I will point out when I return if needed. Thank you for your contributions! 16dvnk (talk) 13:38, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

   I would give it a pass, but there are some areas that a second opinion would help. We shall wait untill then. 16dvnk (talk) 03:08, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

   Now a pass after my review and super thanks to @Epicgenius. Thank you everyone for the participation!

@16dvnk Thank you for choosing to review this article, and I'm glad you're trying out the review process! I'm happy to give you tips during the review process, and I recommend that you ask for an independent GA mentor to support you as well: Wikipedia:Good article mentorship.

Doing the source spot check is a core part of doing the review, and it's good practice for you as a reviewer, so it's appropriate to put this review on hold until you have a chance to try to do the spot check yourself. I suggest using the user script at User:Anne drew/Veracity to generate a table of statements to spot-check. If you make an effort to do the spot-check and can't find verifying material in the citations, or if you find you don't have access to a cited source (such as a book or a paywalled article), please do note that in this review and ask me to help.

When you notice an issue, it's helpful to offer some suggestions with links to relevant guidance. For example, for the suggestion related to section headings, you could include a link to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Section headings. For the technical content, you could recommend to me to review the article against the guidelines at Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable and MOS:JARGON. Try reviewing those guidelines yourself and recommending a few specific improvements based on the guidelines. :) For example, WP:TECHNICAL says "it is especially important to make the lead section understandable using plain language", so I reviewed the lead, and noticed that I should briefly explain IPv4 on first mention in the lead. Dreamyshade (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

Right. Thanks for the suggestions! 16dvnk (talk) 02:40, 28 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. Now that I have returned, I will do the detailed spot check.

Source check:

This table lists 18 random passages from throughout the article (10.0% of 180 total passages). These passages contain 21 inline citations (8.4% of 249 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script.

General sources check:

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
Technical operations and programs
a smaller amount per capita than other regions.
13	a	circleid.com			Not OR because of WP:BASICMATH.
Internet Routing Registries (IRR) operated by RIRs facilitate Internet traffic and improve security, including by reducing risk of Border Gateway Protocol hijacking.
18		blog.apnic.net			Seems like it does not explicitly say "reducing risk of BGP" or the word "hijacking". It writes "... to improve ... BGP...". Also a blog, but it summarizes peer-reviewed research. I won't directly fail it, but it is pretty borderline if you ask me. If there is something I missed, please correct me. I updated the statements about IRRs and RPKI to be more precise and easy to verify in the citations. IRRs are helpful, but RPKI is more effective against BGP hijacking. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC) All good. 16dvnk (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
19		manrs.org
The meetings take place in various locations throughout Africa.
31		meeting.afrinic.net
Organization
As required by ICANN policy for regional Internet registries, AFRINIC is a non-profit, non-governmental, community-led entity.
46	a	iana.org
Six directors are elected to represent the six sub-regions, and two directors are elected based on professional expertise.
48	b	afrinic.net
AFRINIC staff carry out the daily operations of the organization, including technical and administrative responsibilities. The staff is structured in several departments: CEO's Office, Finance and Accounting, People and Productivity, Capacity Building, Communications and Public Relations, Infrastructure and Security, Member Services, Registry Products, Stakeholder Development, and Value Added Services.
52		afrinic.net	web.archive.org
History
Staff said that about 0.06% of their /8 IPv4 addresses remained available, about 1 million addresses, as of 2024.
5	d	arin.net
In the May 2018 board election, a majority of voters chose the "none of the above" option as a protest vote.
50	c	theregister.com
Eddy Kayihura became CEO in October 2019.
73		newtimes.co.rw
In December 2019, Kayihura dismissed Byaruhanga from the organization for theft of IP address space.
75		mybroadband.co.za
The Supreme Court of Mauritius ordered the provisional freezing of up to US$50,000,000 in AFRINIC bank accounts,
71	h	apnews.com			No mention of "Supreme Court of Mauritius". "Lu fought back. His lawyers in late July persuaded a judge in Mauritius, where AFRICNIC is based, to freeze its bank accounts. His company also filed a $80 million defamation claim against AFRINIC and its new CEO." Persuading a judge in Mauritius does not mean that the Supreme Court did. There are later mentions of "court", but it is about the defendant asking the "Mauritian court" to consider XYZ. "The misappropriation of 4 million IP addresses worth more than $50 million by Byahuranga and perhaps others..." No mention of any court ordering to freeze the 50 million. "...persuaded a judge in Mauritius, where AFRICNIC is based, to freeze its bank accounts." No mention of the Supreme Court nor the amount of money. A very clear fail unless I am mistaken. Note WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY: "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources. Summary is necessary to reduce the information in lengthy sources to an encyclopedic length – even when the information being summarized comes from multiple sources." The statement in the article is primarily supported by the second citation, and the AP News article is supplemental (showing that a news organization reported on the bank account freeze as well). Still, I went ahead and replaced this citation with a second citation that more directly supports the specific statement. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC) I didn't notice it was supposed to be supplementary. Still, updating the source was a good move and is more solid. The new source supports the claim better (than AP). 16dvnk (talk) 03:39, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
70	h	internetgovernance.org			Claims with more than one source seem to have a lot of WP:SYNTH issues. See the next spot-checking section for more.
The chair of the RIPE Address Policy Working Group criticized the letter for not respecting Mauritius self-governance.
89	c	heise.de	web.archive.org		Courtesy note: Non-English sources are allowed on English Wikipedia. I see a common misconception that suggests otherwise. Onto the actual spot-checking: For RIPE and Sander, it is accurate. Criticizing is also accurate. However, for "not respecting self-governance", I tried consulting Google Translate and a friend that knows Dutch. Both agree that " neo-kolonialistisch anmutenden Töne" (literally "neo-colonialist tones") translates better (according to them) to a lack of respect for African "self-determination". Self-governance maybe works, maybe not, not familiar. I don't know about this one. Please clarify. The article in German, which includes "Selbstverwaltung" in the title and notes the chair's concerns about both "neo-kolonialistisch anmutenden Töne" and the "Modell der Selbstverwaltung", links to an email in English that includes "Who are we (the RIRs are speaking on the member's behalf after all) to decide what is 'appropriate' here?", which is a follow-up to the chair's initial criticism that says "The NRO pushing the government to intervene goes against the basis of the democratic system." A third email from him said "This is something for the African legal system and the African community to solve. We do not control their fate." But since this is a relatively minor detail if only one person had that opinion, I just added another bit about another person with a related opinion. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC) The fixes seem solid. The translation issue is now minor and it should be fine. 16dvnk (talk) 03:40, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
Without a CEO or board, the staff continued to conduct basic operations, but the organization came close to not being able to pay staff.
90	c	theregister.com	web.archive.org
In 2024, Lu successfully sued The Daily Telegraph for libel for an article they published about the dispute between Cloud Innovation and AFRINIC, including for claims that Lu was trying to orchestrate the collapse of AFRINIC.
105		brettwilson.co.uk
Upon the dismissal of the appeal, the court ordered the receiver to conduct a board election within two months, by the end of 2024.
93	e	mybroadband.co.za
110	b	lexpress.mu
The receiver said that the Mauritius Registrar of Companies had mistakenly included Cloud Innovation in the AFRINIC registration information, and that he had filed to remove the mistake.
117	b	theregister.com	web.archive.org
ICANN sent another letter to the receiver that disagreed with Cloud Innovation's effort to dissolve AFRINIC, emphasized that IP addresses are not private assets, and recommended improvements for elections to reduce interference.
121		circleid.com
The judge withdrew as inspector in August 2025.
126		lexpress.mu			I can verify that the judge withdrew as inspector. However, there is no mention of "August 2025". The article was published in August 2025, but I see that it's not explicitly stated in the article that the judge withdrew within the same month. Added a second citation with a statement of the withdrawal date, reused from the previous sentence. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC) I see. Your decision to add a new source is also great; it now says that "...to step down on Wednesday, August 20, 2025..." which is correct. Would it be better to list the full date though? Either way, passes. 16dvnk (talk) 03:43, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

General comment: Pretty solid, but a lot of SYNTH issues (1 out of 3, 33.3% pass rate). In the single source claims, there is a borderline case and one clear fail (13/15, 86.7% pass rate). Relatively minor issues for single source claims.

SYNTH check:

This table lists 2 random passages with 2+ citations from throughout the article (3.2% of 63 total passages with 2+ citations). These passages contain 5 inline citations (2.0% of 249 in the article). Generated with the Veracity user script.

Reference #	Letter	Source	Archive	Status	Notes
History
Starting as early as 2013, AFRINIC IP addresses were misused to forward spam.
63	a	mybroadband.co.za			IP addresses were misused, but no mention of misused "as early as 2013", not even another year. This citation provides additional information about misuse of AFRINIC IP addresses in 2012-2013, supplementing the second citation, but I've removed it as not sufficiently relevant to the specific statement. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Citation removed. 16dvnk (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
64	a	krebsonsecurity.com			Mentions 2013. Clearly a synth issue. Can you explain what aspect of the statement seems to be original research? This part of the cited article supports the statement: "Historic AFRINIC record lookups show ipv4leasing.org tied to at least six sizable blocks of IP addresses that once belonged to a now defunct company from Cameroon called ITC that also did business as “Afriq*Access.” In 2013, Anti-spam group Spamhaus.org began tracking floods of junk email originating from this block of IPs that once belonged to Afriq*Access." Dreamyshade (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC) My bad for the typo. I meant to write that in the previous box in citation 63. 16dvnk (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
In addition to Cloud Innovation, Lu is associated with the Number Resource Society (NRS), a lobbying group established in 2021 that has criticized AFRINIC in online publications and videos.
89	a	heise.de	web.archive.org		There is mention of Lu associated with the NRS. No mention about it being established in 2021 nor a "lobbying group". There is mention of it criticizing AFRINIC in online publications and videos. It's ok that this citation only covers part of the statement, because the statement as a whole is supported by the three citations. It summarizes material from the three articles, but does not draw new conclusions not stated in any of the articles (see Wikipedia:Combining sources). I included multiple citations that verify that Lu is associated with NRS because this is a controversial claim about a living person (WP:BLPRS) - you can see on the talk page that people with COIs have disputed the "direct personal affiliation". Dreamyshade (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Oh. My bad for confusing the policies. I now know to check all sources as a whole, unless a new conclusion is drawn that is not stated. 16dvnk (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2026 (UTC)
82	c	theregister.com			Lu's association with the NRS is included. It is established in July 2021 as a "lobby group". The "online publications and videos" claim seems sound.
90	a	theregister.com	web.archive.org		Lu's association with the NRS is included. No mention of any founding date, "lobby group" nor "online publications and videos". Same comment as above. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC) Same explanation as above. 16dvnk (talk) 03:47, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

In the SYNTH check, we can see that 0/2 (0%) passed. Combining the stats in the general check, we can see that 1/5 (20%) has passed. This shows a somewhat significant SYNTH and OR issue in the article.

Criterion 2C:

I am failing Criterion 2C. The issues do not seem significant enough to quick fail, but many claims with more than one source are weak; one sources covers everything, while the others do not mention the claim at all, or only address a single portion. If I have made a mistake, please correct me. Thank you very much!

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll respond to each of these individually, and I also still encourage requesting a mentor at Wikipedia:Good article mentorship to support with interpreting GA criteria and related guidelines for both WP:TECHNICAL and WP:SYNTH. Dreamyshade (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2026 (UTC)

Added comments inline, including links to WP:SYNTHNOTSUMMARY and Wikipedia:Combining sources. I do appreciate your enthusiasm for WP:NOR. Dreamyshade (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Update: Criterion 2c:

Done. Everything in the spot-check seems sound. 16dvnk (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Glad to share details about interpreting policies. For future reviews, I do suggest using more of a approach on your first pass for criteria and spot-checks (basically state your analysis and ask for clarification or correction), rather than . Most articles nominated for GA need a bit of work to meet GA, and GA reviews are more fun for everyone if both nominator and reviewer approach the article with a growth mindset. I'm rarely ruffled, but the next person may be a bit more green. :) Definitely keep the enthusiasm and willingness to dig into the details - it's great! I'm glad you helped me improve verifiability for several statements. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:18, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience. I do know some editors who are more "green" and your feedback here is precious. 16dvnk (talk) 04:20, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

"For instance, an encyclopedia article about a chemical compound is expected to include properties of the compound, even if some of those properties are obscure to a general reader. Often, summarizing highly technical details can improve the readability of the text for general readers and experts alike."

I was thinking something like adding a short footnote or an inline explanation/summary of what IPv4 or IPv6 is, but I understand that the articles you listed does not require that being featured. Perhaps I am too sensitive. I can probably ask my mentor (when I get paired) about this.

In your examples and your cited policies though, it does seem that the other articles do not need to do that. Perhaps it is not needed. I can't find other examples for technical terms, so I am passing it for now, and wait for a mentor to clairfy for me.

Criterion 1a: (preliminary) 16dvnk (talk) 04:07, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The lead section summarizes the article well.

Layout seems fine, no clutter after your fix.

No magic words.

Grammar seems right.

It seems like it may pass 1b as well.

Criterion 1b: 16dvnk (talk) 04:13, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

The only thing stopping it from reaching GA is feedback from a mentor (since I am new) and a final audit by myself. Thank you for your understanding. Should I set the status to "2ndopinion"? 16dvnk (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Great! Yes, looking at WP:GANI#2nd, marking it as "2ndopinion" looks suitable. I'll also take another look at providing more context for the core technical concepts. I could put a bit more plain language explanation into the "Internet numbers" section. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

@16dvnk While we're waiting for a second opinion, feel free to take a look here: AFRINIC#Internet numbers. Based on the "brief background section" concept described at MOS:JARGON, I added a bit of context about IP addresses to this section. Dreamyshade (talk) 21:42, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

This was what I was looking for about "IPV4" or "IPV6". Thanks for the edit! Also, I can see that I forgot to update the list, so let me do that!

Sincerely,

16dvnk (talk) 02:33, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Small suggestion: for items in the core list of criteria (1-6) where your initial analysis was and you’ve updated your assessment based on improvements or discussions, I suggest updating the icon in the original list, or adding a comment next to it with your current analysis. This can help a second reviewer understand the overall status of the review. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:48, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll do that now. 16dvnk (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2026 (UTC)

Comments by Epicgenius

Hi 16dvnk, Dreamyshade asked for a second opinion. I've offered to look at it, and can leave some comments early next week. Seems like the main issues raised above are (1a), (1b) and (2c) so I will be primarily focusing on these. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:04, 31 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I'll get on this tomorrow. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:49, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dreamyshade, one quick thing I noticed: Many sentences start with "AFRINIC supports" or some other "AFRINIC [verb]" formation. Is it possible to change up some of these so the sentence structure is not as repetitive? – Epicgenius (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2026 (UTC)

@Epicgenius Ha, that reflects my preference for active voice and plain structures. Makes sense though, adjusted the article a little. Feel free to edit directly as well. Dreamyshade (talk) 04:23, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

Here are my initial comments (I haven't gone through the whole article yet):

• In general, I would be careful of MOS:OVERLINK. For example IPv6 is linked twice in the Capacity building and partnerships section after being linked earlier in the article. I suggest a script like User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js.
  • Went through and removed some extra links.
• Lead, para 2: "IPv6 addresses, which are less well-supported but plentiful" - I would change "less well-supported" to "less widespread support" for grammatical flow.
  • Adjusted.
• Internet numbers, para 2: "Regional internet registries manage IPv4 addresses, which are short and well-supported but in limited supply (see IPv4 address exhaustion), along with IPv6 addresses, which are long and plentiful but not yet supported by all systems (see IPv6 deployment)" - As to 16dvnk's point above, perhaps there can be an explanation of the differences between IPv4 and IPv6 here.
  • That's my effort at explaining the core difference in a brief and plain-language way. Curious if there's a particular different aspect that seems important to include?
    • Oops, I missed that. I would say that IPv4 addresses are physically "shorter" and IPv6 are physically "longer", as I missed that the first go-around. - EG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Epicgenius (talk • contribs) 14:40, 7 August 2026 (UTC)
• WHOIS database: "It can be searched by using the web interface on the AFRINIC site or by directing a whois client to whois.afrinic.net (for example, whois -h whois.afrinic.net 196.1.0.0/24)." - I feel like this can be seen as WP:NOTGUIDE; it may be sufficient to say that this is searchable.
  • That's fine, removed that detail.
• Routing security support: "AFRINIC supports Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI)" - Can this be briefly explained?
  • Added a bit more context about why promoting adoption of RPKI matters to AFRINIC.
• Domain Name System services, para 2: "To improve the resiliency of DNS in its service region, AFRINIC offers secondary DNS hosting services for primary name servers in Africa" - Similarly, can this also be briefly explained? Might help provide some needed context here, especially as this paragraph is one sentence long.
  • Added the purpose of hosting secondary DNS name servers.
• Policy development, para 1: "These representatives are primarily, but not exclusively, from Africa." - Is there a source for this (particularly the "not exclusively" part)?
  • Can't find a specific source that verifies this other than through examples, which would be OR, so I removed it.
• Policy development, para 3: "Together with the four other regional Internet registries" - The regional Internet registries covering the rest of the world?
  • Yes. Does this need be clarified in some way?
• Organization: I think it might be better to have the members mentioned first, then the board of directors. I was confused when I got to para 2 of the "Board of directors" section, until I read the Members section.
  • This might also entail rewording the "Service region" section to introduce what the board of directors is, e.g. "It is divided into six sub-regions to ensure regional representation on AFRINIC's board of directors".
  • OK, I put the members first.
• Council of Elders: "In 2023, the Council of Elders consisted of Nii N. Quaynor, Pierre S. Dandjinou, Viv Padayatchy, Maimouna Ndeye Diop Diagne, and Christian Bope." - Any updates to this? It has been two full years since the statement has been made (I'm assuming that new elders may not have been picked for 2026 yet)
  • There's no specific information on the website about the current Council of Elders, since they apparently did some inconvenient restructure that erased a lot of their pages recently.
• Members; "Membership is open to individuals, ... Members include [...] individuals." - It feels repetitive to say, twice, that membership is open to individuals.
  • Made this a bit more concise.

– Epicgenius (talk) 12:22, 5 August 2026 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Replied inline, thank you! Dreamyshade (talk) 03:25, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

No problem. Here's the rest of my review.

• Formation: "The organization was established as an organization in Mauritius" - This seems redundant. Do we need to say "organization" twice?
  • Fixed
• IPv4 exhaustion process: I would modify the /8 link to point directly to Classless Inter-Domain Routing#IPv4 CIDR blocks.
  • Added brief inline explanation of CIDR notation with better link text.
• IPv4 exhaustion process: "Staff said that about 0.06% of their /8 IPv4 addresses remained available, about 1 million addresses, as of 2024" - This seems like it's off by a factor of 100. Wouldn't 1 million be 6% (0.06) of 16 million?
  • Good point, looks like an error in the presentation. Simplified this statement. Also clarified and updated the explanation of the soft landing process.
• Sexual harassment and bullying complaint: "In the May 2018 board election, a majority of voters chose the "none of the above" option as a protest vote." - What happened as a result?
  • The board used bylaws section 13.14 to appoint people. My understanding is that people were not particularly happy with this. I haven't seen secondary reporting on this part.
  • Actually, reading further, this entire section seems tangential to AFRINIC's history, especially as the legal disputes and board vacancy seem more relevant. Though I suppose this section is included because of a lack of info about the 2000s-2010s history, compared with the 2020s history.
    • Condensed this section a little, since the two articles in the Register are the only secondary coverage I've seen. This controversy was part of why the board brought in a new CEO in 2019 with a mandate to sort out the organization (which led to going after Cloud Innovation).
• Theft of IP address space: "Starting as early as 2013" - I would drop "starting", since "as early as" conveys that this misuse of the IP addresses had begun no later than that time.
  • Fixed
• Beginning of legal disputes with Cloud Innovation: "Cloud Innovation filed several additional lawsuits related to organizational operations." - Do we know how these ended?
  • AFRINIC used to have a helpful lawsuit status tracker. According to that page, last updated April 2026: the judge dismissed some of them, Cloud Innovation withdrew some of them, and some are in ongoing litigation. Updated the sentence to be more specific.
• Dissolution of the board: "Since the remaining elected directors did not have quorum" - I would say "have a quorum"
  • Fixed
• Effort at board election: "potential conflict of interests on the nominating committee" - The proper plural of COIs is "conflicts of interest".
  • Fixed
• Continued governance challenges: "Subsequently in July 2025" - The month is already mentioned earlier in this section, so I would say "Later that month".
  • Fixed

That's it regarding prose. Other than that, I think the article meets 1a and 1b. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

@Epicgenius Just checking in on whether it seems like anything else seems needed here. Thank you! Dreamyshade (talk) 16:53, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

@Dreamyshade, sorry for being unclear. I meant to say that I think this should be closed as a pass. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

Oh, thanks! @16dvnk I think you get to close this if you consider it ready! Dreamyshade (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I'll go close this after I handle some stuff off wiki. Thanks for your patience! 16dvnk (talk) 04:22, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Replied inline. Good to fix up the CIDR part and clarify the vague bit about lawsuits, thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Beta Beta Beta (talk) 03:37, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that one company has tried to dissolve AFRINIC, which is part of Africa's Internet infrastructure?

• Source: Wexler, Alexandra (2025-11-28). "The Battle Over Africa's Great Untapped Resource: IP Addresses". The Wall Street Journal. Africa's internet registry, called the African Network Information Centre, or Afrinic, allocates IP addresses in Africa...In July, Lu's company, Cloud Innovation, filed a petition at the Supreme Court of Mauritius to dissolve Afrinic.
• Sharwood, Simon (2026-05-27). "ICANN again intervenes to defend AFRINIC". The Register. Cloud Innovation reacted to ICANN's letter with an announcement that it would commence legal action aimed at "dissolving AFRINIC as a corporate entity and transitioning its responsibilities to a more trusted framework." That action is now ongoing...Cloud Innovation's application to dissolve the registry continues to make its way through Mauritian courts.

• • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/The Angry Birds Movie

Improved to Good Article status by Dreamyshade (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 11 past nominations.

Dreamyshade (talk) 05:54, 15 August 2026 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: Earwig 27.0%; violation unlikely, no copyvio concerns on spot check. Hook's good, should be fine to run. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:28, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

• @Dreamyshade: I added a "citation needed" tag to the article which will need to be resolved before this is promoted. Z1720 (talk) 02:03, 11 September 2026 (UTC)

• @Z1720: I removed the vague uncited sentence and added a more specific cited sentence along those lines. Thanks! Dreamyshade (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2026 (UTC)