This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics articles
I have made it known before, but @Brigade Piron: claimed I was inserting another image simply because "it was my image". This claim of badfaith, made me back-down. However, the more I look at this image, the more it seems inappropriate for this particular article. While I'm not a preacher of the concept of "Africa Rising", I know for a fact that one of the many indications for the concept, is that of the invasion of formal markets. However, the image at the top of a Wikipedia page for "Africa Rising" is a 2006 image of an open informal market, a type of market that has been in existence on the continent for millennia. A sharp opposite of what "Africa Rising" is preaching. It's okay if you don't want to use an image "i took", but I'm sure there are hundreds of images on Wikipedia, of African malls, supermarkets and formal street markets. They are definitely better than what this article is using.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 16:40, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since your comment is obviously aimed at other users for comment, I don't intend to respond properly and I suggest you place a notification on WP:AFRICA to get some fresh input. I am, however, sorry that you think I accused you of bad faith in February 2016 and I hope this has not prevented you from contributing further to the article. What I will say, though, is that I opposed your image (linked here) because, to me at least, it seemed to depict pretty much the same subject as the current picture without either being as instantly recognisable for the reader (especially in a small size) or (subjectively) as aesthetic. I would also say that the perfectly reasonable argument you present above is not the justification that you originally presented. Personally I maintain my opposition to the picture anyway on the same grounds, though I fully agree that there may better pictures available on Commons elsewhere. Best, —Brigade Piron (talk) 16:53, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't intend to blow this discussion out of proportion. Afterall, it's not exactly a topic I'm interested in; what I was trying to achieve with the image, was just in my bid to improve content on the encyclopaedia. Recently, the article popped up in my watchlist and I felt the need to state what's on my mind, before I finally place the article in my blind spot. That's all. Regards.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 01:02, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
