Talk:Ranavalona I/GA1

GA Review

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)

• "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)

• 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)

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

A beautiful article. I'm glad you developed it!

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Excellent work! – VisionHolder « talk » 16:36, 11 February 2011 (UTC)