Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Rastafari/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 Laser brain via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2020 [1].

Rastafari

[edit]
Nominator(s): Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about one of the world's best-known, if often misunderstood, religious movements - Rastafari. The article has been GA rated since October 2019 and is extensively sourced to high-quality academic publications. Having previously pulled Heathenry (new religious movement) up to FA quality, I'm hoping to do the same with this article, which I believe meets the criteria. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review
  • File:Dreadlocked rasta.jpg tagged factual accuracy disputed due to lack of documented connection to Rastafari. This should be resolved. Also, the file is low resolution and better ones might exist
  • I've changed the image caption to "A man with dreadlocked hair, akin to that worn by Rastas", so the factual accuracy situation has been resolved. I'll try and see if we have a better resolution image available, however. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:16, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Funk

[edit]
  • At first glance, there appear to be a good deal of duplinks, which can be highlighted with this script:[2]
  • "Many Rastas nevertheless" I think here you could add "many rastas, adherents of Rastafari", for clarity.
  • Should be mentioned adherents are also called Rastafarians? You now use mainly "Rasta", but in a few places you sue "Rastafarians", which is confusing without explanation.
  • "The term "Ras" means a duke or prince" State in which language.
  • The photo under Definition could be right aligned, as the subjects face to the left, per MOS images.
  • "Rastafari, also known as the Rastafarian Movement" While it may not be discouraged by some, Rastafarianism is also a common term, so shouldn't it be listed too?
Maybe "Rastafarian Movement" can also be added back? There is a stray "the" left in front of Rastafarianism now in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I've sorted this now. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bob Marley isn't linked outside the intro.
  • Links names and other terms in image captions.
I'm thinking more of for example Bob Marley, cannabis, ital, etc., which are not linked in any captions. Duplinks within the article body are separate from those in the captions, so would not count as dulinks.
  • You could link and mention Jamaican Patois somewhere, now you only link the general patois article. I'd expect some discussion of it under "Language and symbolism", but I don't know if that would be supported by the sources.
  • "the anthropologist Stephen D. Glazier" Until this point, you have mentioned many people without presenting their occupation. This could be consistent.
  • "Rastafari are monotheists" Here you even use a third term to refer to adherents. Shouldn't it be Rastas or Rastafarians? Does Rastafari also refer to adherents? it is a bit confusing and could need explanation.
  • "particularly the depiction of him as a white European" Perhaps link to race of Jesus here.
  • "reject the idea that Selassie was the Second Coming, arguing that that event has yet to occur." The second "that" could maybe be "this", to avoid repetition?
  • "Haile Selassie's body had been buried beneath a toilet in his palace, remaining undiscovered there until 1992" His article states "In 1992, Selassie's bones were found under a concrete slab on the palace grounds,[167] though some reports suggest that his remains were discovered beneath a latrine." So do we even need to mention one scenario? All we need to know is his remains were only found in 1992 inside the palace grounds.
  • It's a bit confusing that you have the sections "Afrocentrism, Babylon, and Zion" and "Babylon and Zion" in succession. Especially since the first of the two doesn't mention Babylon and Zion. Perhaps rename it "Afrocentrism and views on race" or similar?
I think title capitalisation like now in "Afrocentrism and Views on Race" is discouraged. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've changes the case. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Babylon is the Mesopotamian city which conquered and deported the Israelites" Wouldn't that be the state of Babylonia that conquered them, and deported them to the city of Babylon? And should Babylonian exile be linked?
  • "He suggested that this attitude stemmed from the large numbers of young people that were then members of the movement" When?

Many thanks, FunkMonk. I'll try and deal with the other points that you raise at some point in the next few days. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing the rest gradually in the coming time too. FunkMonk (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcus Garvey is not linked at first mention, nor in the image caption he is mentioned in.
  • Ganja could be linked at first mention.
  • Supplication could be linked.
  • "where a prominent early Rasta, Leonard Howell, lived while he was developing many of Rastafari's" When?
  • Link Arab?
  • Perhaps make clear if much of their vocabulary is common to patois, as indicated by the Iyaric article.
  • You are using the Ethiopian flag during Derg rule (which deposed Selassie) to illustrate the flag, I'd assume something like that used before under Selassie would be more appropriate, but you already show that at the beginning of the article. Maybe use this instead, which is basically the same[3], but does not have the Derg connotation in the title? Or show the pan African flag for historical context?
  • You show to photos of Selassie with essentially the same caption. Perhaps the second time show a photo from about the time he visited Jamaica, or when he reclaimed his throne, as described in the adjacent text?
  • Unfortunately I can't find any images of Selassie from 1966, the year he visited Jamaica, at Wikimedia Commons. Nor are there any images of him in 1941 - the image currently used is from 1942, shortly after he had reclaimed his throne. I can make that clearer in the image caption. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the new caption is a good solution. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we have a photo of an actual Rasta with dreadlocks to replace that very low res, tightly cropped photo of someone who may not be a Rasta?
Yeah, it's unfortunate that the dreads are hardly visible. How about this photo (maybe cropped)?[4] The man has very prominent dreadlocks, and though we can't be sure he is a Rasta, he and the man behind him are wearing the Rasta colours. FunkMonk (talk) 14:34, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added that image. Hopefully a better image can be found in future, however; one that unambiguously of a Rasta with dreads. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You don't mention rastacap in the article body, only in captions. Maybe it's what's alluded to here? "while some Rastas tuck their dreads under a tam headdress"
  • "accorded special status to the east African nation of Ethiopia because it was mentioned in various Biblical passages" The fact that it was one of the first Christian countries and wasn't forcibly converted by Europeans must also have played a rile? Does the sources mention this? I think it would be significant to mention.
  • To be honest, I don't recall any of the sources explicitly stating this although I quite agree that this seems like something that would be a plausible reason for why Ethiopia came to be given special status in Rasta belief. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Prince Cudjoe of Sudan" Is this a real person that could be linked?
  • "The island's British authorities arrested him and charged him with sedition, resulting in his two-year imprisonment." When?
  • Maybe the photo under the Africa section can be moved to the right, as the man is facing left?
  • "One of the most prominent clashes between Rastas and law enforcement was the Coral Gardens incident of 1963" Could this be very briefly explained, since we should not force readers to chase links, in the words of the MOS?
  • I'm not sure I agree this painting[5] is original enough to be copyrightable, if the image is kept on Commons, I think it could be reinstated.
  • Not much to do about it, but photos of women are quite absent from the article, so it's good that the first photo of people includes a woman.
  • Can Charismatic Christian link to anything?
  • The history section stops in the 1990s. Nothing to say about the current millennium?
  • The main texts on the subject (most of which are written in the 20th century, admittedly) don't really give much attention to 21st century developments. Edmonds' 2012 book makes mention of the 21st century (at page 31) but doesn't really outline any major developments. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under Mansions of Rastafari, you link the different mansions at second mention instead of first, when they are all listed.
  • the sect was responsible for establishing the Rasta community in Shashamane, Ethiopia" Link Shashamane here at first occurrence?
  • "the sect was responsible for establishing the Rasta community" This is the only time you refer to one of the mansions as a sect. Should you start out the section by saying they are sects, or replace the word?
  • Perhaps a shame that the map of Ethiopia doesn't show the location of Shashamane?
  • We don't talk about Shashamane at that juncture of the article (only much later) so I don't know if it would be particularly useful to the reader; to be honest, I also don't know how I'd make a decent looking map with Shashamane included. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and in Israel, primarily among those highlighting similarities between Judaism and Rastafarianism.[505]" Among Ethiopian Jews, or more generally?
  • How do non-black Rastas consolidate themselves with the Babylon concept, since they have not been exiled form Africa?
  • While it may seem like a given, you only state it is an Abrahamic religion in the intro. But isn't that a too general statement, considering it is derived directly from Christianity?
  • Possibly, but there are a great deal of commonalities with Judaism too so I think that "Abrahamic" is perhaps the most appropriate categorisation at this juncture. Calling it "Judeo-Christian" in the lede, for instance, would likely raise more issues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Babylon to something in the intro?
  • Perhaps I'm being a bit dense, but I'm not sure that I understand you here. Could you clarify?
Yes, as far as I can see, the term Babylon does not have a wikilink in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I understand. I don't think the Babylon article itself would be appropriate as a link here, however. Do you think we should link to Iyaric#Other words instead? Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:31, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems fine. The only other remaining point seems to be the one about the photo of a dreadlocked man that could maybe be used. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • One additional point, in one caption you say "A Rastaman", in another you say "A Rastafari man". Not a big deal, but probably best to be consistent.
  • Looks good, and I'm just about to support, I wonder if the now replaced Benjamin Zephaniah image should be moved back to under the Europe section?
Seen this, Midnightblueowl? FunkMonk (talk) 10:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, FunkMonk. Was in the midst of fixing the duplinks situation when you messaged - good timing! I've now added the Zephaniah image back in. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking the time on this one, FunkMonk. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:01, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from A. Parrot

[edit]

I also intend to review this and have made a few prose edits (hope you don't mind), but I think I'll review after FunkMonk so we don't collide with each other. A. Parrot (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the literature on Rastafari, so all I can offer is what I call an ignorant layman review. Beyond stylistic critiques, all I can judge is whether the article explains the topic thoroughly and clearly enough that I feel I have a basic understanding of it. And in this case, it does. A couple of my stylistic concerns are significant enough that I'm not supporting just yet, though I'm close to doing so.

Many thanks for giving your time and attention to this, A. Parrot! Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through some of your easier posts and respond to the rest of your queries later in the week. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:53, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Larger concerns:

  • I feel like the Definition section could be shortened and simplified. Right now it feels like a bit of a tangle of scholars' names and quotation marks, which reads less welcomingly than is ideal for the first section of an article. In particular, "Rastafari is a decentralised and heterogeneous movement; it is neither monolithic nor homogenous" is redundant.
  • The placement of the History section, in the middle of the article, seems less than ideal. I'm wondering if it might belong after Definition and before everything else. I know that would require some reworking of the text, particularly because some of the explanation of who Haile Selassie was would have to be moved from Beliefs into History, but I think it would give the reader better context for what comes after. Howell seems to have been the closest thing Rastafari had to a founder, and it seems better to mention him first in that context than as simply the author of a book.
  • Tricky one. I think you make a fair point but at the same time I think some would argue that, because we are dealing with a living religion that has many living exponents, there is a need to get its beliefs and practices out there first. In Heathenry (new religious movement), which gained FA rating a few years back, we have the same structure that is employed here. I'd be interested in seeing what other editors think on this point. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk, Aza24, and Lee Vilenski: Any opinions on this point? A. Parrot (talk) 00:07, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I had similar thoughts, but then I looked at other articles about religions and saw they had a similar structure to this. I think because it's such a recent religion, we may have a tendency to see it as more of a historical subject than mainly a religious one (and therefore focus more on historical aspects than the religious traditions themselves). But perhaps that would be to take it less seriously than older, more established religions, which would be unfair. FunkMonk (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I don't really see this as a super big blocker. Might need a wider consensus on how this should be treated, but it can quite easily be moved. FWIW Beliefs and practices are quite similar in this context, so I don't really see much of an issue. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 07:53, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny you bring this up, since when I was reading through I was actually confused at the beginning of the Beliefs section (I didn't see the section name) because I thought it was the history section. In that respect I think it's more natural for the article to be laid ou with the History section after the definition, but like the others my feelings aren't especially strong here. Aza24 (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Midnightblueowl: Based on these responses, I strongly recommend putting the History section first, but in the interest of not dragging out the FAC more than necessary, I'm not making that a condition of my support. A. Parrot (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the overall length of the article (well over 12,000 words), I question whether some of the details in the History section, particularly in the first subsection, are all that necessary to include here.

Smaller stylistic stuff:

  • Image placement is a bit strange. Images are often left-aligned when there isn't any real reason for them to be. The only specific reason the MOS gives for aligning left is so that images of people can face inwards, toward the text, but the photos of Haile Selassie and Marcus Garvey are actually aligned the opposite way.
  • I've always tended to try and alternate images in the article, so as to avoid the appearance of everything lining up on the right hand side, which I think can look quite lop-sided and messy. For that (largely aesthetic) reason, I've done the same here. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm largely OK with that, but the photo of Garvey and the first of Haile Selassie should look toward the text. A. Parrot (talk) 22:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've realigned the Selassie image and I've replaced the Garvey image with another that looks leftward. Midnightblueowl (talk) 08:40, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You often refer to Bible verses without quoting them. That's understandable, given how long the article already is, but you could link to those passages with Template:Bibleverse.
  • I question whether "god" should be capitalized when not used as a name (e.g., "a singular God", "the same God"), particularly given that you say "…the white Jesus was a false god."
  • "Millenarianist" sounds odd; the term I usually see is "millenarian", which conserves a syllable.
  • A fair point. I've changed this to "millenarian".
  • "…with Haile Selassie going into exile." It would be more straightforward to say "…and Haile Selassie went into exile."
  • It might be worth briefly explaining what "routinisation" is.

Coordinator note

[edit]

With no active support for promotion after well over a month, I'm afraid this one is bound for archiving soon. I'm going to monitor for a few days since there is active commentary but clearly it's miles off, with no end in sight. --Laser brain (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, when my last few points are answered, I'm ready to support. And A. Parrot can probably begin reviewing now (was waiting for my review to finish). FunkMonk (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, no problem as long as activity is happening. I'd hate to lose momentum at this point! --Laser brain (talk) 14:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24

[edit]

Very interesting article – I want to take a look soon but am getting increasingly busy. Hopefully I can review the whole thing in the next few days Aza24 (talk) 05:05, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • although small communities can be found... ?
  • "connotations of doctrine and organisation which they wish to avoid" I'm not 100% sure what this is referring to. Would this be the Rastas wanting to avoid connections to other religions?
  • It's more to do with the sense that (in the popular imagination) the term "religion" gets associated with hierarchical churches who tell people what they should believe and how they should practice. A lot of Rastas don't like those associations and thus avoid the term "religion" itself. Do you think there is a better way of rephrasing this in the article? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah I see what you're saying now. "With doctrine and organisation" to me sounded like referring to something specific, but if it's just the general idea of a religious doctrine/organization then perhaps rephrase to something like "the use of -ism exhibits the religious characteristics which they wish to avoid" ? Not a huge deal, I think it might have just been me that was confused here. Aza24 (talk) 06:45, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do Rastas have a specific time they think the bible was written maybe? If so, this could be inserted after the part about them believing it to be written on stone
    I'm not sure, to be honest. I imagine that there would probably be a diversity of perspectives on the issue within the Rasta community. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • perhaps link aphorism? I had to look up what it means
  • King of Kings could be linked, the article has an Ethiopian section
  • Got to practices, more later, since I'm finding so little I'll probably end up doing a source review. Aza24 (talk) 01:37, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps "Ganja, or cannabis, is often smoked." would be better as "Cannabis, known as Ganja, is often smoked"
  • wondering if "Most groundings contain only men, with women being excluded.[209] Some Rasta women have established their own all-female grounding circles" can be combined/simplified. Maybe "Most groundings contain only men, although Some Rasta women have established their own all-female grounding circles" (otherwise "only men, with women being excluded" is redudent)
  • Assuming "August 1" should be "1 August"?
  • Also the Independence of Jamaica article says the day was 6 August (should probably be linked her too) unless these are different events
  • I wonder if the rejecting of "mainstream scientific medicine" includes vaccines? May be worth including

Support by Lee Vilenski

[edit]

I may end up claiming points towards the wikicup. Hope you don't mind! :P|

I'll take a look at this article, and give some comments on how it meets the FA criteria in a little while. If you fancy doing some QPQ, I have a list of items that can be looked at here - specifically FACs for 2020 World Snooker Championship and 1984 World Snooker Championship Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • This arises due to the template used to link to specific Bible passages over at Wikisource. If there's a way to remove the second appearance of the book name while retaining the template link, I'd be more than happy to do so. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • So {{Bibleverse}} (which I think is what you are referring to) says: "Usage of this template inline in the body of an article is discouraged - This template creates an external link. The external links content guideline states that "external links should not normally be used in the body of an article". Place external links to the Bible in parenthetical citations or footnotes." so should probably be within the reference itself, not the body as it is now. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 14:58, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather than putting the Bible quotes in the "Sources" section as if they were references, which I think could cause confusion, I've created a separate section, titled "Notes", where the Bible quotes now appear. I think that that deals with the problem quite neatly. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:21, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added "settlement of" before "Back-o-Wall". Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your time and attention here, Lee. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem (I'm steadily working through all the current nominations!), I've replied to one of your points above, which IMO is a MOS issue. There are also some points listed above that I also noticed by other reviewers, so won't re-tread water above; but note any support here is also reliant on the above being addressed satisfactorily. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Lee; I've dealt with the MOS situation now. I think the resulting change looks much neater. Thanks again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done

  • Some of the details in image captions are not cited - for example that Forchion founded the Liberty Bell Temple
  • Some of the details in the lead don't appear to be supported or cited in the text - for example that Jesus is believed to be a human incarnation of Jah
  • Be consistent in whether references to two adjacent pages use range or comma formatting, and make sure single pages use p. and multiple pp. (eg Fn138)
  • Here, I had tried to use different styles of formatting to indicate how the information is contained on the page. Where I use (for example) "pp. 56, 57" it is because valid information is contained in separate places on both pages; conversely where I use "pp.78–79" it is because the pertinent text stretches over the course of the two pages, running continuously. If you think the result is too much of a mess I can certainly go through and re-format them so that all of the citations all use the range system. (I've also gone through and tried to correct all the examples where it needs to be "pp." not "p.") Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in whether you include locations for periodicals
  • FN327 is a broken link
  • FN328 is also broken, and Reuters shouldn't be in the author parameter
  • FN499 is missing author
  • Check alphabetization of General sources (and why is that the section title?)
  • I'm not really sure where "General sources" came from; it used to be just "Sources" (which I have changed it back to). I've also gone through and ensured that they are in alphabetical order; there were a couple of errors (well spotted!) Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be consistent in when you include states for publication locations
  • Why include the journal subtitle in Francis but not the other citations to this title? Ditto NWIG - should be consistent
  • What makes Ifekwe a high-quality reliable source?
  • It is published in the Journal of the Historical Society of Nigeria, which is archived on JSTOR, so thus appears to have some scholarly merit. Perhaps it isn't as high in quality as some of the journals based in developed countries but I believe it still constitutes a valid source for Wikipedia's purposes. However, if there are serious concerns about this source then it can be removed without causing any real problems. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your sharp eye on this one, Nikkimaria. There's one point that I have yet to address but I shall try to do so soon. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now responded to that last point. Thanks again. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:47, 3 October 2020 (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/Rastafari/archive1&oldid=982412888"