Talk:Report on the restitution of African cultural heritage/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Citing (talk · contribs) 14:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

I will be reviewing this article in the coming days.

This is a well-written article. I believe it has sufficient breadth and content, but it needs work in a few areas to meet the full GA criteria. As noted by MartinPoulter on the talk page, some statements are more interpretative rather than encyclopedic. I have highlighted them in the relevant sub-sections. The prose is good and the writing was usually clear, save for some areas I have noted. The overall tone is encyclopedic but leans toward an essay or a manuscript in places and this will need to be fixed. Again echoing MartinPoulter, some statements need to be reworded to avoid becoming obsolete, and there are sentences that stretch beyond the citations provided. The citations themselves need some work as they are missing details and are inconsistently formatted; some references to the report itself are redundant, some are missing URLs, and some are broken. I think there are tools that could help with some things like filling out author details on citations. I am also willing to help with this. There are also some {{citation needed}} tags present.

There are no obvious copyright issues and pictures seem relevant. I think once tone and citations are addressed we can address original research/interpretation as well. The writing itself is good, though since parts need to be clarified or rewritten the prose is on hold.Citing (talk) 18:15, 7 July 2021 (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

Lead

• 

• The opening paragraph should state what the report is about and its significance (e.g. "it marks the first time the French called for restitution of artefacts..." or something to that effect) before going into the details.
• The opening section focuses strongly on Emmanuel Macron and does not give adequate overview of the rest of the article. Parts (like that about Chirac) could be moved into the article body.
• "since then has triggered numerous controversial reactions". Are the reactions themselves controversial? The body of the article suggests the report spurred action and debate afterwards

I have tried to take care of these comments, and hope the present text is okay so far.Munfarid1 (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The authors and their mission

• 

• The review of Afrotopia does not say Sarr became known internationally for it but just reviews the work itself.
• The citation to Ateliers de la Pensée is broken.

Changed for new citation.

• The citation for "internationally recognized as an expert on the unlawful acquisition of cultural heritage" is to a book by Savoy. You could strike this and get the same idea across by stating she has published works on the topic.
• The citation to Savoy being active in Germany and an expert only briefly mentions her resigning from a board in protest. I don't doubt this but it needs a better source.

The link itself is dead, though an archived version is available.

I have changed this for two other sources.

I have tried to take care of these comments, and hope the present text is okay so far. (More to follow soon.)Munfarid1 (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

The contents of the report

• 

• The authors of the report recommend education initiatives -- there is no citation for this but I assume it's in the report somewhere?

Done.Munfarid1 (talk) 18:11, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The historical and geopolitical context

• 
• The bulk of the paragraph is cited to the report, but no specific page is given.

I think this is best expressed in the citations by external sources given.Munfarid1 (talk)

Reactions and controversies

• 

• This section only covers reactions from the perspective of the US and former colonial powers. Are there reactions from African groups? Or is this meant to represent only the actions of countries who currently hold African artefacts. If so, it should be renamed to reflect the section more accurately (perhaps something like "Reactions and related efforts") or to reorganize the content.

Done

France

• 
• "Contrary to some public reactions by museum curators and journalists, [...]" Unless this is stated explicitly somewhere it feels interpretative.

new link by Didier Rykner, one of the fiercest opponents, included

• The citation to the French Senate is is a 3.5 hour video. Could you add a timestamp?

I have changed this link to a written document of the discussion.

• The citation for the sabre has a note saying it is a European weapon. This can be separated from the citation itself into a separate note via WP:REFGROUP

Done.Munfarid1 (talk) 17:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

In order to reduce the article to French and African reactions, I have moved the sections on Germany, Belgium, GB and the US to a new article called Restitutions of non-Western cultural heritage. I will work on this during the next few weeks, and they are no longer part of our present article. (But your comments are, of course, useful and will be taken into consideration there as well!)Munfarid1 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Germany

• 
• "Given that cultural policy in Germany is the domain of the different federal states [...] there have been several cases of recent restitutions, for example to Namibia." The citation given for this sentence only refers to the case in Namibia, not the differing legal doctrines governing museums (I will note this is not my area of expertise so perhaps this is a case of WP:SKYISBLUE :) ). "recent restitutions" could also be reduced to "restitutions" to make it current.

• Can you summarize Kuchner's National Geographic article?

Belgium

• 
• "[...]collections of the Africa Museum have been complemented by elements of contemporary life in the DRC". Can you explain what this means?

Great Britain

• 
• "most prominently regarding the world-famous Benin Bronzes". Is this referring to the prominent repatriation of an artefact? I believe the British Museum has many equally prominent demands for repatriation (e.g. the Rosetta Stone, the Elgin Marbles)
• "In the context of intensified international discussion, a new willingness to cooperate with African experts can be observed here, too. Thus, [...]"

• Tone? "In the context of intensified international discussion, a new willingness to cooperate with African experts can be observed here, too. Thus,[...]"

United States

• 
• Citations here are insufficient. Two of them are author notes and read like interpretation. I think this section needs to be rewritten to more explicitly reflect the sources provided and to have the proper tone.

Digitisation and open access

• 
• This section is unclear about the direction of the demands being made. Reading the source, I see the signatories demand the French government dedicate more resources to the task, and that they oppose the directive to digitise the collections; this is not clear from the text in the article.

Done, even if I couldn't think of much changes to make it clearer...Munfarid1 (talk) 18:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The situation of ethnographic collections in Africa

• 
• "Concrete results remain to be seen, even several months after..." needs to be rewritten so as to not become obsolete.

• There is a {{citation needed}} tag present and it is unclear who the curator is -- I assume these are all referring to the quoted statement by Charles Kayuka?
• "After all, most objects in ethnographic museums date back to historical cultures that no longer exist today." I would strike this sentence as redundant and for tone.

Done.Munfarid1 (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The legal impact of the Sarr-Savoy report

• 
• The language can be simplified for readers ("derogate" to "deviate").
• Is "statutes" supposed to be "statues"?

Sorry, but I didn't find these words, not even with Ctrl + F...Munfarid1 (talk) 18:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

See also

• No issues.

References

• References are not complete. Many are missing author names, publication dates, and publishers.

• The report itself is cited several times using different formats. I recommend using {{cite report}} once and then using ref tags with the authors and page numbers where necessary.
• There are {{citation needed}} tags present.

Further reading

• . Looks fine. I would recommend an external link to the report itself.

Done.Munfarid1 (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Status query

• Citing & Munfarid1, touching base on the status of the review. Munfarid1, are you planning on responding to the points raised in the review? It has been open for nearly a month, yet you have not commented here. --Usernameunique (talk) 07:35, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Usernameunique, Munfarid1 has mentioned (on his talk page) he would finish revisions in August and let me know.Citing (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello Citing, I have just made my last changes, and you are welcome to check now with a fresh look, what still may be missing... Thanks again for your help! Munfarid1 (talk) 17:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Munfarid1, I'll take a look at it this week.Citing (talk) 14:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, real life had some surprises for me lately. Would you mind waiting another week or two Munfarid1?Citing (talk) 18:24, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks and not at all. - I will be on vacation next week anyway... Munfarid1 (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

@Munfarid1 I made a few small changes, but I'm satisfied with the article. Thank you for your efforts and congratulations!Citing (talk) 23:58, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your efficient assistance and friendly appreciation. It has been my pleasure to improve this article with your help. - Will nominate it for DYK soon! Munfarid1 (talk) 08:24, 31 August 2021 (UTC)