Talk:Ranavalona I/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: – VisionHolder « talk » 23:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Comments: Looks pretty good, although a few issues must be addressed.
Unforunately, the image not only needs an info box but also lacks a source. Good luck in finding a replacement or the source.
- Done
Information in the infobox, such as coronation and parents are not discussed in the article, and thus not cited.
- Done - citations added in the body of the text.
- I'll go ahead and strike this, although "Manjakamiadana, Rova of Antananarivo" was not mentioned as her place of death. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ah- I missed that one. It's been added at the end. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- I'll go ahead and strike this, although "Manjakamiadana, Rova of Antananarivo" was not mentioned as her place of death. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"After positioning herself as queen following the untimely death of her young husband, Radama I, she was also known as Ranavalo-Manjaka I." — These two thoughts don't flow together for me.
- Rephrased
The "Accession to the throne" section seems to alternate between calling her Ranavalona and Ramavo, making it confusing if you don't have the names down yet.
- Good catch - fixed
The article exhibits some over-referencing. Generally you don't need to use the same reference sentence after sentence, unless the references change or the paragraph ends.
- I removed the repeated references, except where there are dates or stats involved, since someone is inevitably going to put a "citation needed" tag on those sentences.
- Good enough. If it needs further thinning, I'm sure it would come up at FAC. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
"scorched earth policies" are not explained.
- I provided a wiki link for those who aren't familiar with the term
The second blockquote under "Preservation of sovereignty" isn't really introduced, although it is a valuable addition to the article.
- Restructured a bit with some new connecting sentences
the "trial of tangena" is mentioned without explanation, and then detailed below
- I think it makes more sense now. I'll continue to add to this article in the run-up to FA until every part of it is fully developed.
"Hova" are mentioned early on but not explained
- rephrased
Two citations are needed in "Internal divisions at court", and the latter one looks like it should also be included in your other GAN, Radama II.
- done
- There's another missing citation at the end of "Foreign plots", and as long as no others pop up, that should be all of them. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- Fixed -- Lemurbaby (talk) 05:58, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
- There's another missing citation at the end of "Foreign plots", and as long as no others pop up, that should be all of them. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:03, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
Is there no more information about Ida Pfeiffer's role in the plot?
- She was simply present at the time. She had no role but was viewed as guilty by association. I modified this a little, but I'd also be fine with removing the reference to her.
Otherwise, the article is looking pretty good. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was able to find the name of the artist & publication date/place, proving the portrait is in the public domain, and it seems according to Wikipedia's policy that a faithful reproduction of PD art can be considered PD itself. We may never know if the uploader was the one who took the photo. I suspect not, but even if that's the case, the original photographer would be hard pressed to prove it was their photo and not someone else's... since it's a faithful reproduction I believe it can still be considered a PD image regardless. What do you think? Updated image info here. I'll be working on the rest of your suggestions for this article and Radama II over the next few days. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I support the changes. Excellent job on the research and image metadata clean-up. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
- I was able to find the name of the artist & publication date/place, proving the portrait is in the public domain, and it seems according to Wikipedia's policy that a faithful reproduction of PD art can be considered PD itself. We may never know if the uploader was the one who took the photo. I suspect not, but even if that's the case, the original photographer would be hard pressed to prove it was their photo and not someone else's... since it's a faithful reproduction I believe it can still be considered a PD image regardless. What do you think? Updated image info here. I'll be working on the rest of your suggestions for this article and Radama II over the next few days. -- Lemurbaby (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
A beautiful article. I'm glad you developed it!
- It is reasonably well written.
- It is factually accurate and verifiable.
- a (references):
b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
- a (references):
- It is broad in its coverage.
- a (major aspects): b (focused):
- a (major aspects):
- It follows the neutral point of view policy.
- Fair representation without bias:
- Fair representation without bias:
- It is stable.
- No edit wars, etc.:
- No edit wars, etc.:
- It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
- a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):
- Overall:
- Pass/Fail:
- Pass/Fail:
Excellent work! – VisionHolder « talk » 16:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)