Talk:Maria das Neves

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:Maria das Neves/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Thebiguglyalien (talk · contribs) 02:31, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Reviewer: LEvalyn (talk · contribs) 20:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I typically like to make small prose edits myself and only note them here if I have questions, but if you disagree with any of my changes of course feel free to undo them or discuss. Looking forward to this review! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Comments

• I'm not sure why Seibert, Gerhard (2006) is listed underneath the reflist? Maybe it's an artifact from a previous citation style? But it looks to me like it should be removed. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Copyright checks out for the photo of her. I spent some time trying to think of anything else that might be relevant, since there are no body images, but unless there's a standard "prime minister's house" (like 10 Downing Street) I can't think of anything -- and my brief searches didn't turn up any such residence. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:25, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• The article mentions her appointment of her husband as an advisor twice, the second time with a year attached. Are these two different appointments, or should it only be mentioned once? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
• Otherwise, I did a prose pass and it's looking good to me. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2025 (UTC)
  • LEvalyn, Seibert & Gerhard is the source for the Sfn citations, I've added a heading for it. The appointment was a duplicate and I've combined them. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 19:07, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

    Ah, that makes sense about the sfn -- I see those cites now. The heading is helpful. Thanks for the fixes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:29, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

• For the source check, I looked at cites 1, 6, 10, 12, and 17 as numbered in this diff. 6, 10 and 17 check out with no concerns. 1 and 12 raised some minor questions for me:
  • A bit nitpicky, but 1 refers to her husband's scandal as "a fraud attempt" whereas the article refers to "allegations that he defrauded a bank". 1 also says he was charged with falsification of documents. Should the article describe the alleged fraud as attempted rather than completed? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • The article says She appointed her husband, the governor of the Central Bank of São Tomé and Príncipe, as an economic advisor but as far as I can see he was no longer the governor of the bank at the time of this appointment? Ref 1 says he was dismissed earlier, and ref 3 actually doesn't mention him at all (and should be removed here). I think just cut that clause about being governor? ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)
  • The article says that the Christian Democratic Front joined in the coup but my reading of Seibert p 280 (and the 2003 São Tomé and Príncipe coup attempt article) makes it sound like they were substantial leaders of the coup. Seibert indicates that the coup was led by [Fernando] Pereira and the FDC president and vice-president, Alércio Costa and Sabino dos Santos, and it sort of sounds like the FDC urged Pereira toward a coup? I think some stronger verb here than "joined", and/or naming the relevant figures, would help make the key events clearer. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

The sources themselves are reliable and used without close paraphrasing. They also satisfy me that the article is appropriately broad and neutral. I'll call the three points above "prose clarity" concerns; they are my only remaining concerns with the article, and I think are quick fixes. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

LEvalyn, I've swapped defrauded with attempted to defraud, added former to the bank governor, and swapped joined with helped organise. I feel that mentioning his previous role is important so the article doesn't imply that his only qualification when she chose him was being her husband. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 🛸 18:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for these edits. I hadn't been thinking about that aspect of mentioning your prior role, but you're right, it's useful to reiterate that information here to contextualize the appointment -- I like your fix. All three of these look good now, so the article looks ready to pass! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2025 (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.