Talk:Muslim–Muslim ticket

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review[edit]

Passed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Muslim–Muslim ticket/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: AirshipJungleman29 (talk · contribs) 21:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


I'll take this review. It will be used for both the WikiCup and the ongoing backlog drive; please consider participating in that. I'll get to this in the next week. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:49, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it well written?
    A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:
    B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it verifiable with no original research?
    A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
    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):
    C. It contains no original research:
    D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
  5. Is it stable?
    It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
  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:
    B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:

General comments[edit]

  • There is significant uncited material within the article, which I have tagged appropriately.
     Working I have started working on this and will continue working on it as we go. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I fixed all {{cn}}s and added more citations as well. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per MOS:OVERSECTION, there is no need for the multiple subsections within the "Key elections" section.
    • This section is titled "key elections", but in reality it appears to be a list of "all elections". In particular, the 2003–2019 elections neither featured a Muslim-Muslim ticket nor saw a shift towards or away from one.
     Done I used elections which featured the Muslim-Muslim ticket on this section now. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:53, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is extensive duplicated material within the article. I do not understand the purpose of the "overview" section—if it is summarising the article, why isn't it the lead section (WP:LEAD)?
     Done I ended up merging the Overview into the lead, which the lead technically represents. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 21:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the short paragraphs could be merged together, so the article does not read so disjointed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
     Done I also worked in this regard across the article. --Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have copyedited the lead section to reduce verbosity.
  • Try to include specific pages for journal articles, for WP:V.
  • "One of the earliest instances of the Muslim–Muslim ticket was [a Muslim and a Christian] ... While not a strictly Muslim–Muslim ticket..." this part is extremely confusing. I would clarify how a Muslim-Christian ticket is a Muslim-Muslim ticket.
  • "is one of the most iconic in Nigeria's history" is this necessary?
  • Why does the "key elections" section duplicate the "historical background" section? Why not just have one "History" section?
  • This article likes to say the same thing many, many times. How many times do you need to say "The Muslim–Muslim ticket threatens religious balance and it has received attention?" There are honestly too many examples of duplication to count, and I don't want this to turn into a WP:FIXLOOP, so I'll outline a few examples and leave you to fix the rest, because as it stands the article does not meet GA criterion 1a).
    • "The use of the Muslim–Muslim ticket has also drawn international attention and perspectives. International observers and diplomats have expressed concerns about its potential impact on Nigeria's stability and reputation. The European Union, in a statement during the 2019 election, emphasised the importance of credible and inclusive elections in Nigeria." takes three sentences to explain what should have been done in one.
    • "The adoption of Muslim–Muslim tickets has occasionally led to legal challenges and electoral disputes. Candidates and parties contesting the legitimacy of election outcomes based on religious and regional considerations have resulted in extended legal battles. The 2007 presidential election, which faced legal challenges, serves as a prime example." Again, three sentences to discuss what could have been summarized in one.
    • "Traditional and religious leaders have also weighed in on the controversies surrounding these tickets. Their influence in Nigerian society can shape public opinion and impact electoral outcomes. In 2007, prominent Islamic leaders called for unity and peaceful coexistence during the elections." The second sentence is completely unnecessary, and the first is mostly unnecessary.
    • "Media outlets often provide a platform for public figures and analysts to express their views." you really don't need to explain what the media is.
  • In addition, there is a good chance the article contains severe WP:NPOV and WP:RECENTISM: the "Recent developments" section is 21kb and only talks about events since 2022; the rest of the article is 23.5kb and covers everything else.
  • There are no images in the article; I'm sure you could add a couple on some of the figures discussed, or a map of the Muslim-Christian division, or of just Nigeria in general.
  • I'll address the source spot-check once the rest of the fixes above are done. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29 Thanks for your feedback. I have tried to address the issues. I don't perceive any NPOV issue though but, what do you think I should do with the recent development section? remove entirely? based on RECENTISM?
    Images, surely, I can find something from Commons. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I'm saying that it should be weighted appropriately with the rest of the article. We do not need paragraphs that unnecessarily duplicate each other in attempts to emphasise certain points. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:48, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, I will go through that section in that regard now and see how I can work things out. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I trimmed it to focus, have a look. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have merged the duplicated contents with the rest of the article. Please continue actioning the above comments. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please point me to the next comment to work on, looks like I addressed all? Vanderwaalforces (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. See e.g. comments on "key elections" vs "historical background" or on general duplication. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @AirshipJungleman29 Hi today, I have merged both sections, and duplication is no longer an issue if I looked correctly. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:43, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spotchecks
  • 10 citations checked, all good.

After significant work, this article is now a good article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by PrimalMustelid talk 08:08, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
Improved to Good Article status by Vanderwaalforces (talk). Self-nominated at 21:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has less than 5 past nominations.

Post-promotion hook changes will be logged on the talk page; consider watching the nomination until the hook appears on the Main Page.
  • Article has achieved Good Article status. No issues of copyvio or plagiarism. All sources appear reliable. Hooks are interesting and sourced. QPQ is not required. Looks good! Thriley (talk) 09:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it[edit]

The article frequently mentions they the Muslim-Muslim ticket is related to political stability and other things, but doesn't mention why or how. I know very little about Nigerian politics. As an outsider, I don't understand the relevance. Some context would be useful to improve readability for a broader audience.

Are most electoral tickets composed of mixed-religion pairings? Or Christian-Christian pairs? Or pairs of candidates who do not explicitly emphasize their religious affiliation? In what way are Muslim-Muslim tickets unusual? Or are they unusual at all?

In what way is a Muslim-Muslim ticket a political tactic? From a strategic perspective, what advantages or disadvantages does it provide?

What are the perceived outcomes of the use of Muslim-Muslim tickets? What results or impacts on Nigerian society do people believe could arise from this, and why? Do those beliefs differ between different segments of society? Pauldebarros (talk) 12:09, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pauldebarros, ...Such political tickets are a distinctive and controversial issue in the politics of Nigeria, a country with a roughly equal population of Muslims and Christians, and a history of ethno-religious conflicts. [...] Nigeria is roughly divided between its predominantly Muslim northern regions and largely Christian southern regions. The tensions arising from this division have occasionally led political parties to adopt the Muslim–Muslim ticket as a strategic move in key elections, often causing significant controversy. The outcomes of such elections often had far-reaching consequences for Nigeria, as they were perceived as either consolidating Muslim dominance or fostering inclusivity. The concept of Muslim-Muslim tickets continues to receive scrutiny in political discourse. I wanted to explain it in my own words but reading the article, I found your answer in the lede. Best, Reading Beans 04:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. What you quoted is an excellent illustration of my point. For example, consider the sentence "The tensions arising from this division have occasionally led political parties to adopt the Muslim–Muslim ticket as a strategic move in key elections, often causing significant controversy.". In what way is it strategic? What is the controversy? If political parties only occasionally adopt the Muslim-Muslim ticket, what do they usually do?
To be clear, I'm not looking to have someone answer my questions; I know this isn't StackExchange. I'm just pointing out thet the article requires the reader to make a lot of inferences which might be apparent to someone well versed in the topic but not to the general public. Of course, it's also possible thet I'm being a little obtuse, and there actually are obvious answers to my questions. Pauldebarros (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pauldebarros Hey there, I wonder a page I created is not on my watchlist, but I have few words in this regard. Let me provide general contexts and answers to the questions you presented, even though the answers are as a matter of fact found throughout the article.
Speaking of the relevance of this topic, this particular type of ticket is mentioned in relation to political stability because Nigeria is a country with a roughly equal population of Muslims and Christians. The choice of both presidential and vice-presidential candidates from the same religion, particularly in a country with a history of religious conflicts, will definitely be seen as a move that either challenges the regulars of religious balance in politics or as a progressive step that prioritises competence over religious representation.
Typically, the major political parties in Nigeria have sought to balance their tickets by pairing candidates of different religions, which usually turns out to be a Muslim and a Christian, to at least reflect the country's religious demographics and to appeal to a wider electorate. Even though this is not a strict rule, it has been a common practice to ensure inclusivity and to avoid alienating any particular religious group. Muslim–Muslim or Christian–Christian tickets are less common and can be seen as unusual because they deviate from this norm of religious balance.
Speaking of it being a tactic or a strategy, a Muslim-Muslim ticket can be used to consolidate votes from predominantly Muslim areas or to signal a move beyond religious politics. But it can also be controversial, yes, it may be perceived as sidelining the Christian population or as a sign of religious favouritism. The advantages could include a stronger support base in Muslim-majority areas, while the disadvantages might involve alienating Christian voters and potentially exacerbating religious tensions.
Lastly, as far as your questions go, in terms of perceived outcomes, the use of a ticket of this nature can lead to some people viewing it as a way to focus on issues beyond religion, promoting candidates based on their qualifications rather than their faith. Others might see it as a threat to religious harmony, fearing it could result in one religious group dominating political power. These perceptions can vary widely among different segments of society, with some fearing an "Islamisation" agenda while others may dismiss such concerns. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that was very helpful. I still don't entirely understand it, but this is obviously a rather specific topic within an area of knowledge where I am largely ignorant, so it would be absurd for me to expect thorough comprehension after reading an encyclopedia article. The added detail you provided here makes it much more accessible to someone who happened upon this article without any background (as I did when I clicked on it from the Did You Know... area on the main page). Pauldebarros (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Muslim–Muslim_ticket&oldid=1220634574"