Talk:Antankarana/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Cirt (talk · contribs) 04:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

I will review this article. — Cirt (talk) 04:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Stability assessment

1. Article edit history shows no issues going back several months, upon inspection.
2. Talk page of article similarly has no outstanding problems.

— Cirt (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Image review

1. File:COLLECTIE TROPENMUSEUM Studioportret van een Antankarana vrouw uit het noordoosten van Madagascar in kleermakerszit TMnr 60027431.jpg = Wikimedia Commons, appropriate licensing on image page. Valuable contribution from the Tropenmuseum.
2. File:Antankarana shelter, Ankarana Reserve.jpg = good licensing on image page at Wikimedia Commons. Consider adding geographic location data with coordinates, but not necessary.
3. File:Ethnic groups of Madagascar Map.png = nice encyclopedic research, no issues here, appropriate licensing on image page at Wikimedia Commons.
4. File:Ankarana Reserve tsingy at sunset Madagascar.jpg = good licensing on image page at Wikimedia Commons. Consider adding geographic location data with coordinates, but not necessary.

— Cirt (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Rest of review

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.	Writing quality is good, good enough for GA, certainly, although not quite as good as at Betsimisaraka people. Suggest it could be a bit more clear and concise, throughout. A few places with sentences that could be shorter, broken in twain, and more concise, with less use of commas. But definitely good enough at the moment for GA.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	Very good lead section, just some overlong sentences here and there. Good overall structure and layout.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	Duly cited throughout with good citation style, very good quality sources used.
	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).	Excellent use of in-line citations.
	2c. it contains no original research.	Appears to rely predominantly on high-quality secondary sources.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Covers main aspects of the topic quite well, while also leaving several subsections with opportunity for expansion on the road to potential further quality improvement. Good enough for GA at this time.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	Yes, article is focused on the topic, like I said, above, some shorter subsections could even stand to be expanded a bit more.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	Article presents material in neutral, matter of fact tone, throughout.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	See above preliminary stability review, passes here.
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.	See above preliminary image review, passes here.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	See above preliminary image review, passes here.
	7. Overall assessment.	Good Article quality. But with room for improvement in a few areas, which is a good thing. :)