Talk:History of Somalia (1991–2006)/GA2

GA Reassessment

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was: delisted. AHeneen (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

---

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to this reassessment in the "Discussion" section rather than within the body of the review.

Scope

I'll take the liberty of impersonating Captain Obvious and point out that the article's title is "History of Somalia (1991–2006)". While there's some decent content concerning various aspects of society & the situation in Somalia, there is one glaringly obvious omission: any chronology of events during this time!! To understand what is missing from this article, see Somali Civil War#Timeline and read until the section "USC/SSA (1995–2000)" (the following section jumps forward to 2006-2009). Again this article is about the history of Somalia between 1991-2006.

Main aspects

There's no mention of the UN mission along with related humanitarian and military missions in Somalia during this time period. This is a significant aspect of the country's history during the period (Fails WP:GAC 3a). A sizeable chronology of events during this time period must be included in this article for it to be at GA status.

NPOV

I see that this article was previously "Anarchy in Somalia", but the scope of most articles is defined by the title. Per WP:PRECISION: "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article". The title clearly indicates this article is about the history of Somalia during that period. Furthermore, it is clear that the prose of this article reflects the former title/scope. However, for many sections that means that the content is not written in a neutral point-of-view. Specifically, it gives undue weight to minority viewpoints: several sections focus on positive aspects of the lack of a central government rather than providing a balanced evaluation of the situation, for example:

• Transport: largely written from a viewpoint that highlights the success of private airlines, rather than provide an overview of transport in Somalia during this time
• Education: "For centuries, the Somali community, as opposed to the state, has been in charge of Islamic education in all aspects, providing financial and administrative support" (that is true of many parts of the world, where local religious organizations have been in charge of education); "in cases where there are state-supported public schools, private schools are often coveted for their academic excellence, outperforming their public competitors in academic achievement tests." (in most of the world, private schools perform better than public schools); the last paragraph is phrased to make the underlying fact seem more impressive: that 2 of 8 tertiary schools were founded during the lawless period
• Islamic courts: This section neglects to adequately note that the Islamic Courts Union (probably the better title for this section) was not just a judicial system, but also a militia faction in the conflict. Non-judgemental terms should be used in this section. The section treats ICU like a legitimate government ("the sharia-based judicial institutions"), while referring to others as "secular rebel leaders" (they were secular, but "militia" is more appropriate than "rebel") and noting that Ethiopian intervention was backed by the UN, AU, & US (ICU was supported by foreign money from various Islamist organizations). The mention of the CIA funding is not very relevant here. "This was cited by experts as a factor in the resurgence of Islamic militias in the country, prompting the latter to engage in pre-emptive strikes which routed the rebel leaders." A factor is not the same as a significant factor and considering the length of this section is not relevant. What would be relevant to mention here is how the governed, imposed sharia law, and how the territory they controlled waxed and waned. "The ICU was later overthrown by the Ethiopian military with the support of the United Nations, African Union, and the United States government. After the ICU forces were chased from Mogadishu, the leaders of the Transitional Federal Parliament entered Somalia declaring themselves the rightful governors of Somalia." What's to say that the ICU were "rightful governors"?

Regarding balance, the article quotes articles (just to pick a couple examples) from the reliable New York Times and Economist that paint a positive picture of the economic situation, but those articles are balanced when noting the risks involved.

• The New York Times referred to post-state Mogadishu as "the ultimate example of deregulation," noting that "[g]utsy entrepreneurs, including some women, opened their own hospitals, schools… telephone companies, power plants and ports."

But the article also balances this view in the following paragraph: "But doing business in anarchy has its drawbacks, like having to pay off a different pack of thugs every block or two. Ismail Goni, who owns an import-export business in Mogadishu, said that each time a shipment arrived, he had to hire dozens of his own gunmen to guard the cargo. "And we still lost 10 percent," he said."

• The Economist argued the lack of telecommunication regulation in Somalia represented "a vivid illustration of the way in which governments…can often be more of a hindrance than a help" to private entrepreneurs.

But the second half of the last paragraph of the Economist article concludes: "But the risks are also high. Investment is all up front. There is no insurance available. And then there is Somalia itself. From a distance it looks like a free-market nirvana after The Economist's heart; but closer up it better resembles an armed oligarchy, capable of taking anything it wants at the point of a gun—even a Nokia handset." (so it's definitely inappropriate to say "The Economist argued...")

I don't have the time to examine every source, but I feel certain many other quotes have been used to include statements into this article that may match the source, but have been taken out of context to present a positive picture.

Unsourced content and reliable sources

There is a fair amount of unsourced content. There are also sources that come from biased sources; while such sources can be used on WP, it is important to consider what they are supporting. Given all the other significant issues with this article, I don't feel like taking time to examine sources to check this.

MOS and prose

The lead does not follow the guidelines in WP:Lead. It has content that does not appear elsewhere in the article and does not adequately summarize the article's content. There is one instance of "Powell et al. (2006)" (in the "Rule of Law" section); the citation style must be consistent in the article.

Additionally, one of the GA criteria is that "Well written: the prose is clear and concise". This article uses an excessive amount of quotes and names the source in the prose. A limited amount of this is ok, when necessary. However, in many places a source named in the prose combined with a quote is not appropriate (that's what the citation footnote is for!). Examples:

• According to the CIA World Factbook, private telephone companies "offer service in most major cities" via wireless technology, charging "the lowest international rates on the continent"

Should be: "Private telephone companies provide service in most major cities and charge the lowest international rates on the continent.

• The CIA World Factbook counsels that "Statistics on Somalia's GDP, growth, per capita income, and inflation should be viewed skeptically",[3] while estimating Somalia's GDP per capita at $600.

Probably better as: "Although the difficult to assess, Somalia's per capita GDP was estimated to be $600 in [year]" Note: the current factbook has 2008, 2009, & 2010 estimates but earlier years are relevant to the article. There is no longer a statement that "Statistics on Somalia's GDP, growth, per capita income, and inflation should be viewed skeptically" It's also worth pointing out that this ranked Somalia 226 of 228 (third from bottom) and I'm reasonably sure that low ranking hasn't changed much in the past two decades.

• Additionally, "adult literacy is estimated to have declined from the already low level of 24% in 1989 to 17.1% in 2001." (no in-prose attrbution, but I don't see why this needs to be a quote)
• Political loyalties are based on clan and region rather than political party, which, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs makes the sustainability of a centralised political system "difficult".

Could simply be stated as "Political loyalties are based on clan and region rather than political party, making the sustainability of a centralised political system difficult.

Overquoting is covered by WP:QUOTEFARM, specifically:

• "Using too many quotes is incompatible with the encyclopedic writing style."
• "Quotes shouldn't replace plain, concise text. Intersperse quotations with original prose that comments on those quotations instead of constructing articles out of quotations with little or no original prose."

Other notes

Other notes (which don't fit into the GA criteria as a reason to demote the article, they're just comments about issues that need to be fixed):

• The "Islamic courts" section is probably best handled as a WP:Summary style overview of the ICU, including how the gained and lost territory.
• The "Transitional Federal Government" is outdated
• I suggest that section on the governance of Somalia be created, with subsections for the ICU, TFG, and info about the preceding Transitional National Government.
• This list is incomplete because there are enough problems with the article & I don't feel like spending more time critiquing it

The former article name may explain why the article is written like it is, but is not an excuse for the article to be in an NPOV manner or not focused on the article's topic. This article clearly does not meet the Good Article criteria. I will give it the usual 7 days for comments before closing. AHeneen (talk) 07:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

For readability, please place any comments or questions pertaining to this reassessment below rather than within the body of the review.

• Comment: Though this was briefly noted above, I would like to reemphasize that the page was originally titled "Anarchy in Somalia". It was renamed after a formal move discussion [1]. Consequently, the page's content largely reflects and fairly closely adheres to this original scope/theme of political and socioeconomic structures under statelessness. Middayexpress (talk) 14:49, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• I think this article should be delisted and not be considered a Good Article. The summary above is impressively exhaustive. What struck me in particular when I first came across this article a while ago, is that it reads like propaganda for anarcho-capitalism — that's why I put the NPOV tag on it. --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 22:48, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
• I agree that this article should be delisted and not considered a Good Article, though ironically it's probably a better article now than when it was originally listed as a Good Article; it doesn't match the new title as closely but it's also not quite as hideously skewed towards a fringe POV,Dtellett (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2015 (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.