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

Nominator: FuzzyMagma (talk · contribs) 20:32, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer: Vigilantcosmicpenguin (talk · contribs) 00:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll take this one. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 00:55, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	Prose is good.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Lead section summarizes the article. Layout makes sense. No WTW issues.
2. Verifiable with no original research, as shown by a source spot-check:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Sources are listed.
	2b. 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).	Article uses reliable sources. Self-published sources and marginally reliable sources are used appropriately.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Article reflects what is in sources.
	2d. it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism.	Earwig says 39.8% but only proper nouns.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	It appears that there is not a ton of coverage of Godwin Obasi, so this article gets the main points.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This fairly short article stays focused on Obasi.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article mentions praise and controversy without undue weight.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Article is stable.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	The only image is public domain.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The only image is a portrait of Godwin Obasi.
	7. Overall assessment.	This is a well-written biography.

• You cite Who's Who (UK), which is listed as generally unreliable. You cite this source a lot, but it's not too bad—it should be easy to find other sources for most of this information, and some of it would be fine if it was removed.
• I'm not familiar with thedevelopmentnews.com or asembi.com; can you explain what makes these reliable sources?
• The "Personal life and death" section is only two sentences. I would suggest removing this section and reorganizing the info. Some articles have sections titled "Early and personal life" and "Death and legacy", which would work here.
• Since "Allegations of theft and mismanagement" is only one paragraph I don't think it really needs to be its own subsection.
• I'll be doing some copyedits myself for grammar, conciseness, etc.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

for Who's Who (UK): I was really careful with this source as I know they have the tendency to embellish. They have double of the awards that I have listed. The half that I removed is either for awards that typically not given to a civilian, like Gold Medal from the Government of Paraguay in 1988 and the Air Force Cross from Venezuelan Gold Medal in 1989. What left is for awards that I found a reference for (hence not used Who's Who as reference), but obscure ones especially from countries that are not in the Global West are hard to verify, especially that the internet was not a common place in the 1990s.

To be honest, I will leave for you to decide. I can remove the two paragraph at the end of the Awards and honours but most of them seem legit especially knowing how diplomats are famous for "award hoarding". FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not think Who's Who should be used for information about awards. If the source is known to have false information, I think it's quite likely that it would falsely claim someone got more awards than they actually did. The only thing I will allow the source for is his birthdate, unless you can find a more reliable source that says it. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  make sense, removed all sentences based on Who's Who (including the DOB), except for his parents name DOB. FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:08, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed as requested, details below

• I'm not familiar with thedevelopmentnews.com or asembi.com; can you explain what makes these reliable sources?: removed asembi.com as I could not confirm reliability, as for the thedevelopmentnews.com the article was written by the Pan-African Media Alliance on Climate Change
• Merged the "Personal life and death" and "Legacy" section
• The section about allegation does not fit with any section; hence why I left as a separate section. looking to other articles, "Controversy" and "allegation" sections are normally separated.
  • Since the allegations were about his operation of the WMO, that counts as part of his career, so it could simply be under "career". You say that allegation sections are normally separated, but the essay WP:Criticism argues otherwise; I think the heading places a bit too much undue weight. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok, moved into the career section FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• The lead section says "Obasi Godwin" instead of "Godwin Obasi". Just to clarify, is this an error or his name written in two different ways?
• To me, it's not clear what he was the first secretariat employee to be named secretary-general means. Does this mean he was the first holder of the position who was promoted from within the agency, rather than being hired from the outside?
• Obasi studied at McGill University and MIT, earning advanced degrees in meteorology, including a Doctor of Science, and receiving the Carl-Gustaf Rossby Award for his thesis. → Obasi studied meteorology at McGill University and MIT, where he obtained a Doctor of Science degree. (the award is not very important)
• was pivotal in founding the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Not really verified in body.
• I don't like the phrasing of but his contributions to climate science remain celebrated; feels like puffery and doesn't seem directly reflected in the body.
• He is remembered as a leading figure in global climate science. is also kind of puffery. Instead, perhaps be more specific and say He has been called "Africa's gift to the world of climate science".

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 01:16, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• could find the "Godwin Obasi" or "Obasi Godwin" mention
• yes, about the "employee to be named secretary-general" but removed from the lead
• The award is very important. This and the Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal are highly prestigious award

• I don't think he received the Carl-Gustaf Rossby Research Medal; it looks like he received a different award named after the same person. The source for the statement indicates that it's an award by the department at MIT, not from the American Meteorological Society, and it has a list of recipients that is clearly not the same list. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say he received the medal. The medal is for well-established scientists and not PhD student. What I am trying to say, that this is significant, it is similar to ACM Doctoral Dissertation Award, Georges Giralt PhD Award or Börje Langefors Best Doctoral Dissertation Award. All of these are renowned awards for different fields. See the full list here. He was the first winner which something I have not realise until now. Anyway, I removed from the lead, because I think your issue is with award being in the lead and not the award being mentioned in the article. FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:54, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• fixed
• removed
• fixed

FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:23, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• McGill University in Montreal, Canada Not important to specify
• Lagos Airport, Ikeja Same here
• and a senior lecturer at the University of Nairobi in Kenya. At the university, He also served as acting head of the Department of Meteorology in Kenya from 1972 to 1973, and as professor and chairman of the department from 1974 to 1976. Additionally, he was and as dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of Nairobi in Kenya from 1967 to 1976.
• We don't need parentheses with the abbreviations IPCC, UNFCCC, UNCCD, if these abbreviations aren't used again.
• The figure of 4.3 million francs could use a conversion.
• It was alleged by Le Temps that → Le Temps said that per WP:ACCUSE

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks alot for taking the time to review the article. Fixed for this section FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:50, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an idea: since there are so many awards mentioned, it would be more legible to replace some of the prose with a table or bulleted lists.
• Remove the mention of the Carl-Gustaf Rossby award, since it's already mentioned earlier.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fixed for these comments FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the mention of the Cabo Verde lecture if there is no secondary source.

— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 02:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that is a problems. See WP:PRIMARY, point 3. A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the source can verify this simple statement, my issue is that it's WP:undue. As a reader of the article, I wouldn't see anything important about the fact that someone held a lecture in his name. The mention of the other memorial lecture is okay, because it's mentioned in a (reliable?) source, which indicates it's important in some way. But for the Cabo Verde lecture, no reliable sources thought it was important enough to mention. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on this point, having a lecture a memorial lecture, twice, is rare and shows how important the person to the field. I am from a different academic field, but we have these kind of lectures when a "giant" pass away, never saw someone honoured twice, especially for such big Pan-African conferences. FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:28, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree—I don't really see how this conference is important. It's not remarkable to me that the UN held a lecture named after a UN official. That being said, it's a very minor part of the article and I will allow it if you still choose to include this statement. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I'll be reviewing 8 randomly selected sources. As of this revision. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, there are a few issues to correct. Placing this on hold. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 03:51, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I think I might confused you by having two sentences followed by ref 10 where ref 10 is only for the last sentence . 9 is about the 1978 (now put there also) and 10 is about the formation of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (remains where it was). FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:00, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Either way, the source does not mention Godwin Obasi at all. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 22:21, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess you mean 10, then yes because it is about the IPCC formation. I will remove it as irrelevant FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  The lead still mentions the IPCC, which is now not mentioned in the body. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 19:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  fixed the lead. Have a look and please cross the issues that you think I have dealt with to your satisfaction, and let me know what I can do to improve the article. FuzzyMagma (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @FuzzyMagma: I have a few remaining comments; these are timestamped 21:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC). Besides these, I see no remaining issues with this article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 21:45, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]