Talk:Judith Kanakuze

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Indy beetle (talk · contribs) 03:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• The subject is deceased, is it possible to add a fair-use image of him based off of the criteria found here: Template:Non-free biog-pic?
• Is it known what ethnicity she was? These things tend to be important in Central African politics. The part about the genocide would suggest Tutsi.

I don't recall it being explicitly stated, but The Guardian alludes to her family being Tutsi so I added in context there. (Article also says, "Public recognition of ethnicity is officially discouraged".)

• most of her extended family was murdered in a Kibuye (west Rwandan) church. The "(west Rwandan)" distinction is unnecessary, as the town is wikilinked.

Some context for a general reader, rephrased

• was selected to serve on the country's 2001 Constitutional Commission as a gender advocate. "Gender advocate" is ambiguous. Perhaps "women's advocate" or "gender equality advocate".

Kanakuze joined the committee that was drafting a constitution, as a "gender expert"

• Kanakuze's legacy is Rwanda's gender quotas That phrase is ambiguous. Was this stuff enacted due to her efforts, or was it done by people who were inspired by her? And if it is purely legacy (work done after her death), it is information that should go at the end of the article. Perhaps "Kanakuze successfully worked to establish gender quotas..."

Both something she did

[Kanakuze] pressed for the 2003 constitution to require that at least 30% of seats in parliament and the cabinet be held by women.

and the action for which she is best known

[Kanakuze] took an active role in ensuring inclusion of numerous gender-sensitive clauses. The most notable of these was the establishment of quotas of 30 percent for the inclusion of female representatives in all decision-making bodies. As a result, women held 48.8 percent of positions in Parliament following national elections in 2003.
— Burnet 2008

Kanakuze ... doggedly advocated for increased constitutional protection of women's rights and has been credited with the idea to include gender quotas in the new constitution
— Bauer & Burnet 2013

• Her landmark parliamentary work was a 2008 law. A little too laudatory in present wording. Perhaps "Her most significant parliamentary work was a landmark 2008 law" or similar.
• According to the first source [1], Deputy Speaker of Parliament Denis Polisi said, "She has been one of the most hardworking MPs—a great representative who felt and spoke out the needs of her country." Sounds worthy of inclusion.

I considered this hagiography, especially on the occasion of her death, since her deeds really speak on their own (Also what would this sentence look like? "Two of her parliamentary colleagues remembered her as hardworking and committed"? Would anyone say anything less of a legislator?)

• [2] Looks like she was accorded a state funeral, which is significant.

I'm not familiar—would this be something afforded to all MPs who die in office?

That much I do not know, though in source 12 [3] an MP is quoted as saying "the entire parliament will mourn Kanakuze; there will be an official function for honouring her in Parliament". For the record, this source also notes that she was a member of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Gender and Family Promotion, which has not yet been mentioned

Hm. I'd consider that info extraneous but added it czar 11:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

-Indy beetle (talk) 03:53, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

@Indy beetle, appreciate the review! I believe I've addressed your points in the text, if you can take a look when you have a moment czar 12:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the nominator's actions. Congratulations, I'm promoting this article. Refreshing to get some more Central African bios in the GA mix. -Indy beetle (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Assessment

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (reference section): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images and other media, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free content have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

-Indy beetle (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)