Talk:Albert Rakoto Ratsimamanga

==GA Review==

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

Reviewer: Juxlos (talk · contribs) 11:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   B. It complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   Per MOS:LEADLENGTH, this article should have around just 1 paragraph as the lead section. As it stands, it is 5 paragraphs - could use significant trimming and certainly needs to be consolidated.

   It's still 4 paragraphs.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:

   The current references are quite inconsistent. Titles are quite raw ("Stamp: President Albert Ratsimamanga (MadagascarMi:MG 2595,Sn:MG 1565,Yt:MG 1827,Sg:MG 1352,WAD:MG001.02"), and dates and retrieval dates are missing in many references. In many citations, page numbers are also missing.

   B. All in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines:

#:: Several highly doubtful sources, such as:

1. madatours.com, a wordpress site, and voyagemadagascar.com, which I imagine is not a reliable source for a historical figure.

   Alamy Stock Photo

   A Facebook post by VivaMadagascar

   An user-generated CodePen website

   C. It contains no original research:

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism: all removed, text trimed when no reliable alternative was found

   While quoting is fine, I am not sure why a direct copy-paste of Didier Galibert's not-quote analysis is necessary. That sentence is something that should be incorporated in parts and restructured to fit better, not directly quoted. And if you still want to quote it, attribute as per MOS:QUOTE.

2. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

#:: What does a 2020 drink scandal has to do with a researcher that died in 2001? This also reeks of WP:OR

1. Is it neutral?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

2. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:

3. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

#:A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:

1. The infobox image can be replaced with a cropped version of either the 1948 or 1972 image. It is not irreplaceable. Also, the caption in the infobox just reads wrong.

   B. Images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

2. Overall: @FuzzyMagma: Even at a first glance, the article will take quite a bit of work to pass as a GA. I have not made any attempt to check the grammar; as it stands, the article needs significant work so that the grammar is the largest concern. It's a shame, Wikipedia can certainly use more Africa-themed GAs, but I am failing this nomination as the problems especially with sourcing and content are quite fundamental and not something easily addressable in a GAN. Feel free to nominate again once the article has gotten the major fixes it needs. Juxlos (talk) 11:50, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

   @Juxlos sorry you feel this way

   if I can push back on some of your points:

   1. MOS:LEADLENGTH is within accepted standard but can be termed

   It is a little too long. The article's length outside lead is something like 6,000 characters and the lead is 1,600. I would reduce the lead length by around 25-30%. Paragraphs should also not consist of just 1-2 sentences, and I'm pretty sure you can just put the sentences together into just 2 paragraphs max.

   2.A. References all of them check out and most of them are weblink that has been expanded and non english ones has been translated

   Then explain, point by point for below:

   How is the CodePen site by one "Razafinjatovo Josia" a reliable source?

   Why is it necessary to cite the Alamy stock photo site(s)?

   Explain why you consider "Viva Madagascar" a reliable source. Is it a local Malagasy news outlet or TV channel? Or is it a pop-news website like BuzzFeed?

   2.B. Given that Africa is not as well-covered as Europe, I have consolidated not very reliable sources to verify each information, that why you will find sometimes 3 references for one

   I edit for the Indonesian biographies and I am perfectly aware of this problem. It is not, however, an excuse for poor sourcing. Multiple unreliable sources do not substitute for a reliable source.

   2.D can be easily amended

   Then amend it.

   3.B. IMRA is now named after Albert and Suzanne (his wife) and this the point of relevancy which can be removed. IMRA research carried albert philosophy of herbal medicine thus the covid drink idea was sold to the public through his name. again, can be removed

   Then remove it. This is something off-topic already, unless the source explicitly states that the drink was sold under his name. In which case, mention it in the article.

   6.A. the photo is actually should not be licensed (per the photo the you protested as being from Almay which dates to USSR)

   Then license it properly. If it is Public Domain, don't tag it as Fair Use.

   you final comment of "he grammar is the largest concern" contradict "I have not made any attempt to check the grammar" and you did not give any comments else where about this i.e., A.1

   I mean that there are so many issues with the content, that the grammar is not my priority. Once the article content and sourcing has been improved, we can move on to the grammar.

   As most of your comment can be done with on a weekend I truly feel you can still spend more time giving a more detailed feedback to help improving the article if you think "Wikipedia can certainly use more Africa-themed GAs".

   Certainly I have spent the time to dig the information and would appreciate my effort not to be described as something to be ashamed of but that is off the point. anyway thank you for your time FuzzyMagma (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

   @FuzzyMagma: This is a Good Article Nomination, not an AFC. Standards are significantly higher, and I'm sorry if you're offended but I am simply scrutinizing based on the standard. Start with the fixes above. For now, I have reverted the fail. For point-to-point, I'd prefer if you addressed it above instead of below, but it's your choice. Just simplicity. Juxlos (talk) 14:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

   @Juxlos I have amended as requested in your initial comments. Hope now u can review the article thoroughly .. FuzzyMagma (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

   You have not for the most part. Regardless, I will begin reviewing the prose shortly. Juxlos (talk) 13:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

   @Juxlos I disagree and it will help if you can be specific FuzzyMagma (talk) 16:09, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Infobox

• You can remove the "in China" in the caption - the background doesn't make people question where he is (because there is none)
• Add "Malagasy" or "of Madagascar" to the office titles. It is not obvious per se which country he was ambassadoring for otherwise (obvious from the text, but not from the infobox alone)
• I would say replace the first "Madagascar" in the birth place to French Madagascar. There was no state of Madagascar at the time, but this is not a requirement.
• Was he a French citizen or a French subject? And remove the flags per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG
• You can remove the "Parent(s)" field as neither are notable
• I personally would remove the "Award" as it clutters the box. Only keep the ones most relevant and notable (usually this is something like the Nobel Peace Prize or a Fields Medal) that will definitely invite bias, as most of them are countries' orders of merits

Lead section

• Merge this into at most 2 paragraphs, I would say one is sufficient. You do not want single sentence-paragraphs in lead section unless the lead section is a single paragraph.
• "doctor of Exotic Medicine" - lowercase

* "between colonised Madagascar and France" - this is unreadable. Do you mean he trained somewhere between Madagascar and France (e.g. in Italy, or Libya, or Tanzania?). "In" works fine.

• Also, colonial Madagascar.
• And you can wikilink straight to French Madagascar

• Restructure the sentences. First you should say that he trained in Madagascar, then he went to France, then he did research, then he returned to Madagascar. As it stands now, the paragraph is illegible.
• "While in France, Ratsimamanga was involved in Madagascar's independence efforts" - this should be placed before he returned to Madagascar to make it proper chronology I do not think he went comeback to be an ambassador

* "he became the republic's first ambassador to France and shaped the Malagasy Republic's foreign affairs." - you can reword this to something like "he became the Malagasy Republic's first ambassador to France and helped shape its foreign affairs". As it stands, it is awkwardly worded, and written as if he was the only one shaping the foreign affairs.

• "and was bestowed upon him the highest orders of merits nationally and internationally." - what?

Early life and education

• "He was the grandson of Prince Ratsimamanga, uncle and advisor to Queen Ranavalona III, who was executed in 1897 at the beginning of the French colonisation of Madagascar." - who, Albert or Razanadrakoto? Specify.
• "When he was only eleven years old, his father died in 1918 from drinking heavily." again, who? Albert or Prince Ratsimamanga? The sentence leaves this ambiguous.

• Also, "heavy drinking".

• "He received his early education at the Faculty of Medicine, University of Antananarivo, until he became a doctor for the Indigenous Medical in 1924." - what is the "Indigenous Medical"?
• "Ratsimamanga was a member of the 1930 Colonial Exhibition in Paris" - was he exhibited? If he was a visitor, an attendant or a participant in some other way, reword this, as an exhibition does not really have a member.

Career

• "Nobel prize literature in Chemistry (1935)." - laureate
• "where he pioneered the [...]." - "Frederic had pioneered the [...] at CNRS". Otherwise, it sounds like Ratsimamanga had pioneered all those things in Frederic, which is kind of creepy.
• "His work showed the presence of hormones in the diet and their role in the development of the body," Ratsimamanga's work or Frederic's work? This is unclear. If it is Ratsimamanga's, write it as "Ratsimamanga's work at the CNRS [...], especially in the liver. These findings pioneered the modern notion of nutraceuticals.

• A cursory glance at the source cited does not assert Ratsimamanga as a pioneer in nutraceuticals. In fact, nutraceuticals are not mentioned anywhere in the article. the two article are for the facts before the final sentence, now moved. I moved the explicit reference forward

• @FuzzyMagma: I am only 1/3 of the way through the article, but it already feels like I am rewriting the entire thing. Please spend another week or two fixing it further - I am revising, quite literally, every sentence here. This is becoming a peer review or even an AfI, not a GAR. I do not believe this article is currently -remotely- workable for GA until it has underwent a massive rework, which I would prefer you put first. Juxlos (talk) 14:16, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Juxlos you gave it a chance. Thanks for your comment. I will address them anyway. FuzzyMagma (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It is on the reviewer to strike out comments. Half of your strikes have not resolved the problem, or have created a whole new grammatical mistake in its place. Juxlos (talk) 03:20, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Juxlos did not that 'It is on the reviewer to strike out comments.', Sorry for that. and again being specific helps FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)