Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ambohimanga/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose 10:04, 9 September 2013 (UTC) [1].[reply]

Ambohimanga

[edit]

Ambohimanga (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Lemurbaby (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ambohimanga is the only cultural World Heritage Site in Madagascar and the best preserved example of a pre-colonial royal city on the island (and possibly one of the best preserved pre-colonial anythings in Sub-Saharan Africa, for that matter). Sister city to an earlier FA article, the Rova of Antananarivo (destroyed in a fire in 1995), the importance of this place both historically and culturally can't be overstated. The topic is widely covered on WP in 25 languages. It's passed GA and I believe it meets the FA criteria. Fire away, folks. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image check - all OK copyright-wise (PD-age, own work). Sources and authors provided. Just some minor cleanup and nitpicks:

  • Ooh, I'm not sure how to rename the file. If consistency is key, I'd want to rename it to something like "Madagascar Rova of Ambohimanga - Nanjakana Compound established by Andrianjafy". Can you walk me through the process? In the meantime, I've changed the image summary to be clearer: "Nanjakana compound, established by King Andrianjafy in the late 18th century at the Rova of Ambohimanga in Madagascar" Lemurbaby (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Ambohimanga.jpg - could you add a bit detail to an English summary description for other re-users, the Italian original doesn't have details? Also Commons categories are missing.
  • Some of the images in the second half of the article have only the name of the building or location as caption. Probably a matter of taste, but consider adding some brief details to each short caption (for example the main function of the depicted building or a notable, captivating fact for context to the article).

A great collection of "own work" images, really helpful for the reader - nice work. GermanJoe (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I lucked out that the government had just recently finished repainting it, so the place is looking at its best in these photos, apart from the cyclone damage. Thank you for taking the time to review it! Much appreciated. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Ranges should consistently use endashes

3 or 4 of the sources do not have ISBN nums. not sure if it's a big deal, but they are good to have in any case. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 14:51, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can answer this one. The Ellis and Sibree sources lack ISBNs because they were published in 1838, 1867, and 1870, respectively, vastly predating ISBN assignment. They probably have OCLC numbers, which could be included, but I wouldn't consider that a strict requirement. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support- all my concerns are answered. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - all points Done. Another fine article, but I have some concerns, mostly about structure, focus and prose. A few examples (I am not sure I will be able to thoroughly check the whole article):

  • first lead para, start of second para => A lot of emphasis on the site's importance. 3 complete sentences and 1 in the second para. Of course the site is very important, but detailing all aspects of this fact in the first lead para feels WP:UNDUE. Trim slightly? Or summarize cultural, national, spiritual and political importance in a more succinct general statement? Also, the last 2 sentences of the second lead para again focus on the site's importance from yet another angle.
  • I'm not quite seeing it that way... I'm stating facts that explain why the site is considered important by the Malagasy and by UNESCO, because it isn't simply an old city - it's noteworthy for a number of reasons, including its history, its architectural distinctiveness, its sacred character and role in pilgrimage, etc. Since all of this is discussed at length in the body, it seems right to summarize it here. But I'm open to suggestions - maybe I'm not quite grasping what you're perceiving here. Lemurbaby (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "He and later rulers in his line continued to regularly inhabit, remodel and conduct royal rituals at Ambohimanga ..." => grammar, "inhabit" and "remodel" sound odd with "at Ambohimanga" (maybe the whole sentence needs to be broken up).
  • Changed to "He and later rulers in his line continued to conduct royal rituals at the site and regularly inhabited and remodeled Ambohimanga until French colonization of the kingdom..."
  • Etymology - just checking, are any additional details about the meaning of "Tsimadilo" available?
  • From the Malagasy I know, it would mean "no tamarind trees" - but there could be other, older meanings, and I haven't found a source that provides an objective translation, unfortunately.
  • "In return he launched a military campaign to capture a significant town under his rival's control, but without success." => Out of scope. How does that event influence the hill site? The article already mentioned, that a lot of fighting was going on. Specific battles would better fit in a history-related article (about the dynasty or Madagascar's history).
  • Fair enough - removed.
  • Layout "Ambohimanga is located in the central highlands of Madagascar, approximately 24 kilometres (15 mi) [east] of the capital city of Antananarivo." => East or northeast? Lead has northeast.
  • Changed to northeast
  • Structure of layout section => The article starts with the specific layout of the hill area, then jumps back and forth from general information for all rovas to specific features of this rova. The whole layout section should be rephrased as facts about this hill in particular, not as general description about all rovas (the first sentence "The rova structure at Ambohimanga follows a traditional design established by the earliest Merina highland settlers by the 15th century." is sufficient to establish that connection) . Also, the information about establishing such sites by nobles looks odd as "layout", maybe move to "history" or a general article about rovas.
  • I agree, your remarks are making me think I can't wait any longer to create a page on Rovas. It was only a matter of time... I will make tweaks and try to create the new page over the next several days.
  • Okay - I've created a page about rovas and removed the sentences I found that talked about how the Ambohimanga features reflect the standards of rovas throughout the highlands. This should be easier to read now.
  • more "Layout" => the Vazimba information is a mix of historical, layout and cultural influence aspects. It's not ideal, but i would move the last 2 sentences to history, where the Vazimba are introduced (Most of the first sentence can be removed as redundant with the history section). The information seems too short to stand on its own elsewhere.
  • I've pruned that piece and moved relevant info to the history section.

Some general suggestions:

  • Prose: i tweaked a few redundant and repetitive phrases, but another look from a native English speaker for flow and grammar would help. Especially complex information is sometimes split across several sub-clauses, and could possibly be phrased clearer and more straightforward.
  • Heh, this is what grad school, academic publishing and multilingualism (native English, though!) has apparently done to my writing style. I'm trying to cram too much into each sentence. Let me go through and see if I can break it up and simplify things over the next few days.
  • Reviewed and made a few changes, which I think have helped a bit with understanding this unfamiliar material.
  • Structure: See section "Layout". If possible, historical, layout, cultural and modern information should not be mixed (sometimes it's unavoidable of course). Splitting the first general layout overview (6 paragraphs) in 2 sections may also help (for example in "Area overview and background information about layout" and "specific details about the site itself", shorter headers needed).
  • I made some changes along these lines, too. For example I moved some content about the features of rovas to the symbolism section to use it more as an illustration of the symbolism rather than a description of typical rova components. I broke up the layout part to include subsections on the villages and natural features, and I think it works much better now.
  • Scope: Judging only from "History" and "Layout" there is a lot of detailed background information in the article. Please double-check if that kind of information is always needed and directly relevant for the reader's understanding of the hill site. Maybe some minor, secondary details can be trimmed or moved to better suited articles.
I do want this to be comprehensive for the site of Ambohimanga, and I want readers to be able to have a basic understanding without needing to click through to too many other articles. Maybe now that I've trimmed the layout section to remove anything not directly related to this site specifically, the article will be clearer. Lemurbaby (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If related articles exist (like history of Madagascar or about rovas in general), they could be added as "See also" at the start of appropriate sections like "history" and "layout" to help readers navigate to related content. GermanJoe (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Point taken. I've linked most relevant articles in the body, which I think means they shouldn't also be added in a "see also" section. But as I continue to develop other relevant articles, I can create a section for See also if it becomes appropriate.
  • All points Done (consider them struck ...), thank you. I would have trimmed the "importance" a bit and maybe a few background details more, but that's a matter of taste, i guess. Not withholding my overall supp. for this nice article. GermanJoe (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - after another read. Comprehensive and well-written. Concerns, mostly about organization, have been adressed. 1 minor point:

  • Conservation => the second para first half and the fourth para second half seem to be covered by a single source (ref #1 and #37). Not every single sentence needs a reference, but consider adding (repeating) the citation once or twice - especially after factual statements like dates and statistics. GermanJoe (talk) 07:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No link to the Commons category, which contains some better images that should be used, especially at the top of the article. Then the doubling-up of images might be justified. Johnbod (talk) 04:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ambohimanga/archive1&oldid=572169500"