The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was delisted by Nikkimaria via FACBot (talk) 5:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC) [1].

---

Rwanda[edit]

Notified: multiple wikiprojects and editors, talk page notice September 28

Review section[edit]

I am nominating this featured article for review because there was no response to concerns raised on talk page. I believe that the article needs work to meet the FA criteria with regard to sourcing, comprehensiveness, and updating. I did make some improvements to the article, but I do not have time to overhaul it myself. (t · c) buidhe 20:21, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the massive amount of work that has gone into the article and attempting to keep it up to date, but I just don't see how it meets the FA criteria currently. At least one section has an "update" banner, and large parts of the article are stuck 5-10 years ago (understandable given that the FAC was in 2012 and the last FAR in 2015). Additionally, I think the article's sourcing needs improvement, I am listing sources that I don't think should be used in an FA (some are tagged ^{[better source needed]} in the article):

• Spartacus International Gay Guide (cited for lgbt rights in the country)
• Xinhua News Agency
• The New Times—not a high quality RS given the press censorship in Rwanda
• PR Newswire and Tech Times, marked unreliable as a result of RSN discussions.

Overall, my sense is that the article relies too much on news/press sources and official statistics, without enough independent scholarship/analysis to figure out which of these number are accurate, informative, and important and to put them in appropriate context. A related issue is the "he said, she said" approach rather than focusing on verifiable facts that independent RS agree on.

Additionally, a number of important facts about Rwanda are not mentioned in this article, for example the role of foreign aid in Rwanda's government budget and economic growth, Rwanda's role in DRC civil war and illegal mining in DRC, etc. despite being significant parts of the Rwandan economy. (t · c) buidhe 03:03, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: sorry I didn't see this notice... I don't think massive updates should be required in principle as it's a summary level country article and most of the points are quite general and unchanging. Obviously this has suffered degradation through general poor quality editing, as many articles do, so some going through with a finetooth comb will be required to bring it back to the level of quality seen in 2015 (unfortunately with many things to do in life I haven't been able to do this through the years). On sourcing, the new times is a national newspaper in the country and should be fine for statements of fact about Uncontroversial matters. If it's used for things about the government that's another matter of course. Rwanda's role in the DRC sad was considered in previous FACs to be out of scope for inclusion in what is a high level summary of the country's history rather than in depth. We could see about adding a sentence or two on this and any other very significant recent developments. I won't be able to fit this in this month, but hope to have some more time in December. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about previous discussions, however, insofar as foreign aid and Congo resource theft are significant to the Rwandan economy, they definitely need to be covered here in my view. I think this edit in the politics section is a good example of how the content would change if the sourcing quality were improved. Not just politics but the economics and human rights section need that kind of overhaul, especially because the human rights situation has impacted foreign aid, which in turn impacts the economy. None of that is currently covered in the article. Instead of news articles I think the article content would be improved by focusing on sources that have more in-depth analysis, such as Africa Yearbook. There is no shortage of scholarly sources about the Rwandan economy so in my opinion there is no reason for the section to be sourced nearly entirely to official statistics (which are not necessarily accurate) and news articles. (t · c) buidhe 22:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Example sources (ofc there are many more):

• Nyenyezi Bisoka, Aymar; Geens, Hilde (2021). "The Price of Progress: Economic Growth, Authoritarianism, and Human Rights in Rwanda". The Governance, Security and Development Nexus: Africa Rising. Springer International Publishing. pp. 253–271. ISBN 978-3-030-49348-6.
• Heinen, Sebastian (2022). "Rwanda's Agricultural Transformation Revisited: Stagnating Food Production, Systematic Overestimation, and a Flawed Performance Contract System". The Journal of Development Studies. 58 (10): 2044–2064. doi:10.1080/00220388.2022.2069494. ISSN 0022-0388.
• Dye, Barnaby Joseph (2020). "Ideology matters: Political machinations, modernism, and myopia in Rwanda's electricity boom". Energy Research & Social Science. 61: 101358. doi:10.1016/j.erss.2019.101358.
• Plänitz, Erik (2023). "Rwanda". Africa Yearbook Volume 19. Brill. pp. 355–364. ISBN 978-90-04-53811-5.

(t · c) buidhe 22:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Buidhe thanks for the above comments, and just to note here that unfortunately I'm really not going to be able to commit the amount of time necessary to bring the sourcing up to speed with the latest things you note above. I actually had thought this one was in a safer position than some others like the Kagame page, where there really are seismic shifts in scholarly perception over time, but I guess I was wrong - the world really does look quite different now than it did in 2012, even in Rwanda. So unless any other white knights are about to step in, I guess that's it for the shiny golden star on this page. If I ever find myself with more time, at least the bare bones are still there and I might be able to whip it back into shape again. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your comments. I think if there is no one who is able to commit the time to improving the article, it should be moved to FARC. (t · c) buidhe 01:10, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to FARC: hopefully editors will step up and give this article the necessary fixes. If it is delisted, editors can also work on the article and renominate to FAC. Z1720 (talk) 14:26, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FARC section[edit]

Issues raised in the review section include sourcing and currency. 04:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

• Delist: valid ((update)) tag in article and thus fails 1c. voorts (talk/contributions) 02:22, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Query, Amakuru, just to be sure, are you throwing in the towel on this one? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SandyGeorgia: regretfully, yes. I think if we need the kind of sourcing and rigour that Buidhe is suggesting then there's no real way I can do anythign about this in the immediate future. As previously noted, my time is pretty limited right now and it seems like some sections here will need a fairly comprehensive rewrite. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @SandyGeorgia: PS - and obviously immensely sad to be in this position - I spent several years on this from 2009 through to 2012 plus the FAR in 2015, but ah well... these things happen and I'm still proud to have taken the page from C-class up to something decent for our readers...  — Amakuru (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delist. This is a pretty good article, but, unfortunately, with a valid ((update)) and 4 valid ((better source needed))s, this fails 1b and 1c is not examplar. Amakuru has thrown in the towel and no one else seems to be on it. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (no relation) 18:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist regretfully per my comments above. (t · c) buidhe 19:26, 23 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delist updates are still needed, and no significant edits to address these concerns. Z1720 (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Closing note: This removal candidate has been delisted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please leave the ((featured article review)) template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:20, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.