# Talk:Report on the restitution of African cultural heritage

Somebody inserted a short paragraph on Portugal, without clear relationship to the topic of the article, which is reactions to the Sarr/Savoy report. As there is also no source for this, I have hidden this paragraph until it might be improved with concrete statements and sources about restitution from Portugal. Munfarid1 (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time to do a full review of this, but I can make some suggestions that will help it toward GA status. I've fact-tagged a few passages where the citation isn't clear. Ref 21 in the current version seems to be missing a URL. "one can hardly imagine the loss of African heritage..." (under United States) and "After all, most objects in ethnographic museums..." (in the last section) seem to be interpretative rather than encyclopaedic text. "Concrete results remain to be seen, even several months after Macron's announcement of a speedy return of 26 pieces to Benin.": try to phrase things in a way that won't go out of date. It also seems a bit interpretative: has any material been returned, and if so what? For the Reactions and Controversies subsections other than France, it's not clear how the developments discussed directly relate to the topic of the article. They should be discussed on Wikipedia, but this is the article about this specific report. Are the developments in those other countries tied specifically to this report by the sources? "Similar questions to those raised by Sarr and Savoy have led to intensive public discussions about Germany's colonial past" is too weak a connection. There's a lot of good content in this article and it is a very important topic, but there are these hurdles it needs to overcome at the very least before it can be considered for GA. Finally, there may be differences of opinion on this, but textual quotations in Wikipedia are required to be "brief" and I don't think that the Amadou-Mahtar M'Bow quotation is brief. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Dthomsen8: - thanks for the update of these banners. What I don't understand is the low importance you gave this article. At the end of the lead, it says: "In 2020, their report and its public response earned Bénédicte Savoy and Felwine Sarr the third place in the annual ranking of the "most influential people in the international art world", established by ArtReview magazine." - Don't you think this merits a higher grade of importance?

Munfarid1 (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Munfarid, I never look at these importance tags. Make it GA, that counts ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, Gerda, you are certainly right that GA counts for the article! - Whether the subject merits more importance, will probably judged by members of the projects. Enjoy your day, - Munfarid1 (talk) 09:12, 6 October 2021 (UTC)